Drugs policy, what a bed of nails. Bill C-15 is stalled (thankfully), now the United Nations seems to argue for shifting drug policy foci from punishing users to more crackdowns on traffickers and more treatment. At the same time, Canada is revealed as a meth warehouse.
Let's state the obvious: you own your body and are free to destroy it as you please. The notion of being slapped on the wrist if you break the law should be just as obvious to proponents of the former, for you can't have one without the other.
Drugs exist and circulate as long as there is a route from producer to consumer, and are susceptible to demand and supply dynamics as any other exchangeable good. Efforts so far have focused on combating trafficking, which should cut supply and drive up prices. In Britain (at least), this resulted in greater cocaine "cutting" instead, with the country still being the cokehead of Europe.
Penalties for trafficking should reach into the highest locally imposable punishments, and I for one applaud the harshness of Colombian, Laotian and Cambodian (among others) justice systems. The Colombian one-year-per-gram is definitely a fantastic deterrent, if only its applications were given more publicity. Consumption, on the other hand, has always been a point of contention.
Boiling the issue down to the transaction itself, buying property obtained through illegal means is illegal in most jurisdictions. Penalties vary, but it lands you with a record. Possession and use of illicit drugs should be, therefore, punishable under that clause. It can be as light as a 1 dollar on-the-spot fine, but unless there is a clear distinction between right and wrong hardly any drug policy will work.
While we may treasure the freedom of taking drugs, we can't dispense with the entire body of law that regulates commerce and exchange. It is wrong to transact with an individual who forwards the proceeds to law-breakers and is not compliant with consumption tax law. On this basis alone the user is eligible for a penalty. I for one believe the offence should be an infraction rather than an indictable crime.
Unless we legalize, regulate and tax the production, import, distribution and safety of illicit substances (a policy I lean toward), possession of them remains abetting a violation of the law. Possession and confirmed use should land you with a fine (however light) and a record expungeable only by reporting to a treatment centre. The most ironic way would be to correlate the fine to local GST and PST, so the State would solely take its due from the transaction.
If I can't buy a stolen bike I won't argue for your right to get high on something that took a dozen broken laws to get in your pocket. But for God's sake don't go with much-trumpeted Bills after the rebel Che-Guevara-shirt-wearing capitalism-bashing daddy's kiddo who keeps a pot plant to delight in the knowledge of giving a finger to Big Brother. That's just potty!
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
The bitter fruit of theocratic illusion
When the ringmaster of the circus comes out saying a ballot is valid and the opposition should stop protesting, your gut usually reminds you it's rubbish. Over the past week I've heard from many whose knowledge of Iran and regional affairs far exceeds mine, and it's clear that the ballot is stolen and the ayatollahs have dropped their mask and merely made explicit what has been the truth all along: there's no such thing as a theocratic democracy.
My hopes rest on the demonstrators and the combination of courage and resolve I stereotypically associate with anyone Persian. They put the fundamentalists in power in the first place, it's their duty to throw them into the dustbin of history. No foreign power should do it on their behalf, as we've so catastrophically tried and bungled in Iraq.
The buzzword I heard most in the first days after the election was stolen was "shock". The shock horror of being denied the freedom to choose your country's number 2 and denied the regime-approved President you actually wanted. Yet with the political system Iran gave itself, this was simply waiting to happen. From an ignorant's viewpoint, a key lesson of people power was tragically left at the scene of the 1979 Revolution: if you trust yourself to discern right and wrong, you should never yield that power to anyone, let alone an unelected mullah. If you do, expect to be trampled.
Today, Iran is at a crossroads (duh!). Whatever direction it takes, the world in its entirety won't be the same again. With the myth of theocracy-democracy coexisting demolished, mainstream political Islam will look for another model order. What this order shapes up to be will determine the course of the next five decades. If it veers to Mosque-State dialectic rather than fusion the paradigm shift will be comparable to Reformation.
In the meantime, we will have to sit and wait for the turmoil to conclude.
My hopes rest on the demonstrators and the combination of courage and resolve I stereotypically associate with anyone Persian. They put the fundamentalists in power in the first place, it's their duty to throw them into the dustbin of history. No foreign power should do it on their behalf, as we've so catastrophically tried and bungled in Iraq.
The buzzword I heard most in the first days after the election was stolen was "shock". The shock horror of being denied the freedom to choose your country's number 2 and denied the regime-approved President you actually wanted. Yet with the political system Iran gave itself, this was simply waiting to happen. From an ignorant's viewpoint, a key lesson of people power was tragically left at the scene of the 1979 Revolution: if you trust yourself to discern right and wrong, you should never yield that power to anyone, let alone an unelected mullah. If you do, expect to be trampled.
Today, Iran is at a crossroads (duh!). Whatever direction it takes, the world in its entirety won't be the same again. With the myth of theocracy-democracy coexisting demolished, mainstream political Islam will look for another model order. What this order shapes up to be will determine the course of the next five decades. If it veers to Mosque-State dialectic rather than fusion the paradigm shift will be comparable to Reformation.
In the meantime, we will have to sit and wait for the turmoil to conclude.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
When did abstention become fashionable?
I've never shunned the ballot box in my life, ever. I voted for the Italian and EU Parliaments, all Italian referendums, my Italian local elections if I was in the country, the Greater London Assembly, Camden Council, the UK Conservative leadership and the London Mayor Conservative primary. So it really irks me to hear several parties calling upon the Italian citizenry not to vote in the upcoming electoral law referendums.
Independently of the merits and demerits of the propositions, in Italy any referendum has to have a turnout of 50%+1 to be valid. When special interest groups know they are a minority but hate the proposed change, a "stay at home" campaign is mounted. This is political mediocrity at its finest.
It may sound obvious, but a vote is a duty. Try to come up with a reasoned opinion on an issue you are indifferent to. If you firmly believe you have no opinion, leave the ballot blank. If everyone disgusts you, spoil it. If you sit on your bum, don't complain when things don't go your way or nutcases win seats in your country. The end.
Independently of the merits and demerits of the propositions, in Italy any referendum has to have a turnout of 50%+1 to be valid. When special interest groups know they are a minority but hate the proposed change, a "stay at home" campaign is mounted. This is political mediocrity at its finest.
It may sound obvious, but a vote is a duty. Try to come up with a reasoned opinion on an issue you are indifferent to. If you firmly believe you have no opinion, leave the ballot blank. If everyone disgusts you, spoil it. If you sit on your bum, don't complain when things don't go your way or nutcases win seats in your country. The end.
Friday, 5 June 2009
An announced and expected wipeout
Labour is toast. They have been wiped off the county council map and so far (with many wards still to declare) it has lost 200 of the 450 council seats it was defending.
In Bristol, the minority Labour administration was kicked out earlier, and the city now obtained a Liberal-Democrat majority, with Labour holding on only to two of the ten seats it was defending in this round. The fortresses of Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and Staffordshire have fallen. With 11 wards to declare at the time of writing, the Tories needed only one win to secure a majority on the county council. In Cumbria, usually very Labourite, the Conservatives are the largest party in the council without holding an outright majority.
The Tories also snatched Devon and Somerset from the Liberal Democrats.
Combined with the wave of resignations by junior and senior ministers, Brown's position is rocky indeed. When even the Guardian says there's a problem with Labour and it's time to cut Gordon loose, you know things are bad. The Times also had a series of scathing comments, including "Vote Labour, vote mayhem". Although I cannot retrieve the article, The Sun strongly endorsed the Tories in this round of local and European elections as well.
On Monday the Labour Party caucus will meet after taking the European ballot drubbing. If Gordon Brown is Prime Minister on Tuesday, we will have to conclude that either he is the most tenacious political survivor or the party he leads is spinelessly accepting its fate and delaying the inevitable wipeout. This wouldn't be a problem if a leader with a vision was at the helm. Instead, Britain has a discredited Prime Minister who can't even keep his Cabinet in order. Not good.
In Bristol, the minority Labour administration was kicked out earlier, and the city now obtained a Liberal-Democrat majority, with Labour holding on only to two of the ten seats it was defending in this round. The fortresses of Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and Staffordshire have fallen. With 11 wards to declare at the time of writing, the Tories needed only one win to secure a majority on the county council. In Cumbria, usually very Labourite, the Conservatives are the largest party in the council without holding an outright majority.
The Tories also snatched Devon and Somerset from the Liberal Democrats.
Combined with the wave of resignations by junior and senior ministers, Brown's position is rocky indeed. When even the Guardian says there's a problem with Labour and it's time to cut Gordon loose, you know things are bad. The Times also had a series of scathing comments, including "Vote Labour, vote mayhem". Although I cannot retrieve the article, The Sun strongly endorsed the Tories in this round of local and European elections as well.
On Monday the Labour Party caucus will meet after taking the European ballot drubbing. If Gordon Brown is Prime Minister on Tuesday, we will have to conclude that either he is the most tenacious political survivor or the party he leads is spinelessly accepting its fate and delaying the inevitable wipeout. This wouldn't be a problem if a leader with a vision was at the helm. Instead, Britain has a discredited Prime Minister who can't even keep his Cabinet in order. Not good.
Sunday, 31 May 2009
This is why, despite all, I am pro choice
George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who provided abortion services that included potentially illegal late-term abortions, has been gunned down in a drive-by shooting this morning. The police issued a description of the suspect:
If what Tiller did was illegal, justice should have caught up with him and shoved him in jail. Shooting from a car is typical of gangsters and terrorists, not civilized human beings. I understand the motivations and reasoning of both camps, and I see both extremes which I equally despise.
As I haven't heard of pro-choicers firebombing churches or murdering ardent pro-lifers, count me in the choice camp until further notice. No further correspondence will be entered into. Suck it up.
Update 1: despicable stumentalization of this tragedy for cheap political points by the Daily Kos.
Update 2: Too little, too late, too obvious. Condemn and discipline those who mislead women, lie, intimidate and cry "holocaust", then I'll believe you have the backbone to face the issue as mature and respectful beings. The ultra-liberals lie and mislead too, that's why I don't buy their rhetoric either.
a white male in his 50's, balding with gray hair last seen traveling west bound on 13th in a 1993 powder blue Ford Taurus, with tag 2-2-5-B-A-B and possibly a K-State vanity plate.
If what Tiller did was illegal, justice should have caught up with him and shoved him in jail. Shooting from a car is typical of gangsters and terrorists, not civilized human beings. I understand the motivations and reasoning of both camps, and I see both extremes which I equally despise.
As I haven't heard of pro-choicers firebombing churches or murdering ardent pro-lifers, count me in the choice camp until further notice. No further correspondence will be entered into. Suck it up.
Update 1: despicable stumentalization of this tragedy for cheap political points by the Daily Kos.
Update 2: Too little, too late, too obvious. Condemn and discipline those who mislead women, lie, intimidate and cry "holocaust", then I'll believe you have the backbone to face the issue as mature and respectful beings. The ultra-liberals lie and mislead too, that's why I don't buy their rhetoric either.
Saturday, 30 May 2009
When they came for the stupid, I said nothing.
There is nothing scarier than a paternalistic government system that believes it knows best. Case-in-point: British social services shattering a family with the complicity of the court system, simply because the mother is deemed literally too stupid to bring the baby up.
The same system that failed Baby P scores of times, the same system whose mention chills law-abiding parents' spines, this system today deprives Rachel of her child and forbids all further contact. Adding insult to injury, she was denied the right to have a lawyer of her choosing represent her during the court hearings. No surprise, then, when the court agreed it was in everyone's interest for the baby to be placed for adoption.
In all honesty, I respect and admire social workers and family courts, most of them at least. Those who do their job properly rescue children from harm and ensure their welfare. What makes me boil is the top-down, box-ticking and target-peddling system they are forced to work in, the assumption of infallibility the government fosters in its employees and the defencelessness of the common man against this onslaught. Every government office in Britain should hang a plaque bearing the inscription "You are the government. F**k off and die."
The family is sacred. Every social worker (however professional), every self-righteous judge, every unelected civil servant must get it into their thick skulls that if there is any way to keep the family whole, government must back out and die. Rachel's family seem perfectly capable of helping out, additional tutoring for the baby could be arranged at the council's expense. Instead we are left with a humiliated mother, a distraught baby, the right to a fair hearing buried and the bitter aftertaste of knowing the mediocrity we've slipped into.
The same system that failed Baby P scores of times, the same system whose mention chills law-abiding parents' spines, this system today deprives Rachel of her child and forbids all further contact. Adding insult to injury, she was denied the right to have a lawyer of her choosing represent her during the court hearings. No surprise, then, when the court agreed it was in everyone's interest for the baby to be placed for adoption.
In all honesty, I respect and admire social workers and family courts, most of them at least. Those who do their job properly rescue children from harm and ensure their welfare. What makes me boil is the top-down, box-ticking and target-peddling system they are forced to work in, the assumption of infallibility the government fosters in its employees and the defencelessness of the common man against this onslaught. Every government office in Britain should hang a plaque bearing the inscription "You are the government. F**k off and die."
The family is sacred. Every social worker (however professional), every self-righteous judge, every unelected civil servant must get it into their thick skulls that if there is any way to keep the family whole, government must back out and die. Rachel's family seem perfectly capable of helping out, additional tutoring for the baby could be arranged at the council's expense. Instead we are left with a humiliated mother, a distraught baby, the right to a fair hearing buried and the bitter aftertaste of knowing the mediocrity we've slipped into.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Where's your peace now?
Posturing without any real need to do so can mean only one thing: North Korea is serious about holding the western world to ransom. This outcome has been wholly predicted as far back as 1953 by the leaders of the western intervention force, so we are witnessing yet again a "told you so" moment which history offers us a wide selection of.
The frustration one should legitimately feel is compounded by the obvious misery of knowing we've consistently worked toward this outcome. With our short-sighted policies, naivety and fear of being judged disguised as pragmatism we weaved a chaotic web characterized by giant gaping holes. A temptation hard to resist for many a populist leader, let alone a maniac well past his sell-by date.
Unlike 1953, however, we are faced with an entirely different East Asia. Former nuclear superpower Russia abandoned communism and world domination through brute force. China, at the time atomically unarmed, dictates local geopolitics from the economic and military bully pulpits. Our close allies in the region look to us for help instead of arming themselves in turn. This is a duty the United States cannot afford to dodge.
North Korea's lesson to the world is that multilateralism rarely works. The unpalatable alternative is a world policeman who can wield a whip, crack it and inflict pain if necessary. In the age of globalization, peacekeeping and "Hope and Change" we will be crudely reminded time and time again of the inherent imperfection of human nature. North Korea, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Burma: diplomacy won't work forever on them, if at all. The rule of force, realization of one's own vulnerability and the fear of pain are among the basic instincts we inherited from our common simian ancestor. Today, those instincts are all that stands between us and a potential nuclear attack from North Korea.
What's to be done? Cuetting aid and imposing sanctions will achieve nothing. The country is starved to death anyway and the leadership is uncaring. Kim Jong Il needs to be told in no ambiguous terms that his life is dispensable, the US will have no hesitation in nuking the country to hell and that he has blown his chances. The diplomatic table must be closed, nuclear subs sent to the Korean Sea and Yongbyon blasted to kingdom come without warning or regret. If Mr Kim were to carry out his threat of renouncing the armistice, we need to finish the business started in 1950 and take no prisoners.
Pyongyang is not worth trading for Tianjing or Khabarovsk. Mr Obama, for the good of us all please crack that whip.
The frustration one should legitimately feel is compounded by the obvious misery of knowing we've consistently worked toward this outcome. With our short-sighted policies, naivety and fear of being judged disguised as pragmatism we weaved a chaotic web characterized by giant gaping holes. A temptation hard to resist for many a populist leader, let alone a maniac well past his sell-by date.
Unlike 1953, however, we are faced with an entirely different East Asia. Former nuclear superpower Russia abandoned communism and world domination through brute force. China, at the time atomically unarmed, dictates local geopolitics from the economic and military bully pulpits. Our close allies in the region look to us for help instead of arming themselves in turn. This is a duty the United States cannot afford to dodge.
North Korea's lesson to the world is that multilateralism rarely works. The unpalatable alternative is a world policeman who can wield a whip, crack it and inflict pain if necessary. In the age of globalization, peacekeeping and "Hope and Change" we will be crudely reminded time and time again of the inherent imperfection of human nature. North Korea, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Burma: diplomacy won't work forever on them, if at all. The rule of force, realization of one's own vulnerability and the fear of pain are among the basic instincts we inherited from our common simian ancestor. Today, those instincts are all that stands between us and a potential nuclear attack from North Korea.
What's to be done? Cuetting aid and imposing sanctions will achieve nothing. The country is starved to death anyway and the leadership is uncaring. Kim Jong Il needs to be told in no ambiguous terms that his life is dispensable, the US will have no hesitation in nuking the country to hell and that he has blown his chances. The diplomatic table must be closed, nuclear subs sent to the Korean Sea and Yongbyon blasted to kingdom come without warning or regret. If Mr Kim were to carry out his threat of renouncing the armistice, we need to finish the business started in 1950 and take no prisoners.
Pyongyang is not worth trading for Tianjing or Khabarovsk. Mr Obama, for the good of us all please crack that whip.
Friday, 15 May 2009
Russia postures on the Arctic
Russia beats the war drum over the Arctic, and hardly anyone, me included, can be bothered. First and foremost all the Arctic countries that are not Russia are under the US nuclear umbrella. Ergo, unlike environmentalist nuts like David Suzuki and despite Medvedev's name meaning "bear man", the Russians will never exchange the population of a middle-sized city for a piece of land that's under ice, water, polar bears and a logistical nightmare.
Furthermore, Canada has nothing to fear as Russia will find its friendship convenient for international shipping negotiations in the Northeast and Northwest passages. Sometimes it does pay to have a possessive superpower on your borders, provided you are ready to wave your weapons in return if the neighbor gets a little too friendly and enters your airspace.
There are also rumors of a joint continental shelf submission by Canada, Russia and Denmark. That would save everyone a lot of hassle, but clearly the battle for the Arctic has begun. The damn thing needs to be carved up and stewarded as national territory and property, otherwise it'll be the tragedy of the commons all over again. Russia encircles half of the Arctic already and nothing can stop it destroying the wilderness if it so wished.
So if we want to save the polar bear we have to agree who owns what, and that is better done between five foreign ministers in a room than at the UN. And don't worry about the Russians. When their army isn't made of 18-year-old conscripts, it's underfunded, under-equipped volunteers and rusting nuclear warheads.
Furthermore, Canada has nothing to fear as Russia will find its friendship convenient for international shipping negotiations in the Northeast and Northwest passages. Sometimes it does pay to have a possessive superpower on your borders, provided you are ready to wave your weapons in return if the neighbor gets a little too friendly and enters your airspace.
There are also rumors of a joint continental shelf submission by Canada, Russia and Denmark. That would save everyone a lot of hassle, but clearly the battle for the Arctic has begun. The damn thing needs to be carved up and stewarded as national territory and property, otherwise it'll be the tragedy of the commons all over again. Russia encircles half of the Arctic already and nothing can stop it destroying the wilderness if it so wished.
So if we want to save the polar bear we have to agree who owns what, and that is better done between five foreign ministers in a room than at the UN. And don't worry about the Russians. When their army isn't made of 18-year-old conscripts, it's underfunded, under-equipped volunteers and rusting nuclear warheads.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Conservative attack ads review
So the Conservative Party has unleashed the campaigning machine on Michael Ignatieff, who is supposed to be the Liberal Party's messiah. The attack ads in English and French (which can be viewed here) are aimed mostly at his absence from Canada, his unflattering quotes about Canada and Quebec and his lack of policy on the economy.
I think Ignatieff's previous disdainful writings should come back and bite him, as what goes around comes around. Some of the ads definitely rock, but I'd like to offer some constructive criticism. I take the "What makes us Canadian" ad as the gold standard, because it is great!
Exhibit A: Country (EN). Efficient in portraying flipping loyalties, though as an immigrant myself I think it is good practice to be loyal to the country that hosts you. Should have focused more on the quotes about how Quebec is no different from Minnesota except for signage, or how of Canada he only missed Algonquin park.
Exhibit B: Arrogance (EN). The Algonquin quote is out of context here, being cosmopolitan isn't a sin and sometimes people can be derogatory to themselves for fun. Ignatieff is elitist, and that would have worked much better.
Exhibit C: Economy (EN). Good attack ad, but the "invisible man" quote should have been voiced and prominent. The French version is absolutely fantastic: no policy and lots of taxes, clear and snippy.
Exhibit D: Hypocrisy (EN) (FR). Just! Plain! Useless! An attack ad against attack ads, and the French version is mute. Give me a break! At least three other Tories are incensed: Raphael Alexander, Hugh MacIntyre and Gerry Nicholls, while Darryl Wolk is of the contrary opinion.
Exhibit E: Quad (FR). An attack ad on Ignatieff's policy and sayings on Quebec. You know what? It's a good one!
Exhibit F: Photo (FR). Rubbish. One good jab and three random swing-and-amiss that do more damage than good. Leaving Canada for 34 years is no sin per se, attachment to the country where you live is expected by Conservatives of new immigrants, while ridiculing someone for speaking Parisian instead of Quebec French paints you both as a redneck and an anathema to Acadians. Attack ad FAIL.
All in all a fairly average array of attack multimedia. Some of it "ouch", however I expect more. The "What makes us Canadian" ad is fantastic because it appeals to Canadians' pride in their history and country, shattering that with Ignatieff's name. We need to tap into this pride and this joy of being Canadian, and that's the kind of message that will take us to a majority government.
I think Ignatieff's previous disdainful writings should come back and bite him, as what goes around comes around. Some of the ads definitely rock, but I'd like to offer some constructive criticism. I take the "What makes us Canadian" ad as the gold standard, because it is great!
Exhibit A: Country (EN). Efficient in portraying flipping loyalties, though as an immigrant myself I think it is good practice to be loyal to the country that hosts you. Should have focused more on the quotes about how Quebec is no different from Minnesota except for signage, or how of Canada he only missed Algonquin park.
Exhibit B: Arrogance (EN). The Algonquin quote is out of context here, being cosmopolitan isn't a sin and sometimes people can be derogatory to themselves for fun. Ignatieff is elitist, and that would have worked much better.
Exhibit C: Economy (EN). Good attack ad, but the "invisible man" quote should have been voiced and prominent. The French version is absolutely fantastic: no policy and lots of taxes, clear and snippy.
Exhibit D: Hypocrisy (EN) (FR). Just! Plain! Useless! An attack ad against attack ads, and the French version is mute. Give me a break! At least three other Tories are incensed: Raphael Alexander, Hugh MacIntyre and Gerry Nicholls, while Darryl Wolk is of the contrary opinion.
Exhibit E: Quad (FR). An attack ad on Ignatieff's policy and sayings on Quebec. You know what? It's a good one!
Exhibit F: Photo (FR). Rubbish. One good jab and three random swing-and-amiss that do more damage than good. Leaving Canada for 34 years is no sin per se, attachment to the country where you live is expected by Conservatives of new immigrants, while ridiculing someone for speaking Parisian instead of Quebec French paints you both as a redneck and an anathema to Acadians. Attack ad FAIL.
All in all a fairly average array of attack multimedia. Some of it "ouch", however I expect more. The "What makes us Canadian" ad is fantastic because it appeals to Canadians' pride in their history and country, shattering that with Ignatieff's name. We need to tap into this pride and this joy of being Canadian, and that's the kind of message that will take us to a majority government.
Friday, 8 May 2009
Luca has landed
I will probably get accused of obnoxious bragging, but I landed as a Permanent Resident at 8.30 PM today (Friday). Which not only makes me a new immigrant, but also the happiest person on this planet right now.
Big thanks are in order to all those who helped me put together the application, wrote recommendation letters, proofread my french and endured months of stressed pacing around the office or the apartment.
And absolutely monumental thanks go to Immigration-Quebec and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They are living proof (in my case) that government agencies can provide an absolutely spotless, responsive, predictably reliable service. My case was finalized in a flash, and I'm grateful for all the dedication that those people show for their jobs.
Big thanks are in order to all those who helped me put together the application, wrote recommendation letters, proofread my french and endured months of stressed pacing around the office or the apartment.
And absolutely monumental thanks go to Immigration-Quebec and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They are living proof (in my case) that government agencies can provide an absolutely spotless, responsive, predictably reliable service. My case was finalized in a flash, and I'm grateful for all the dedication that those people show for their jobs.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Who needs the Olympic Committee's blessing?
First the EU bans seal products, then the House of Commons proposes that seal pelts be incorporated into the Canadian Olympic uniform. Today we hear from the head of the Canadian Olympic Committee that the uniforms aren't changing and the event won't be used for any political purpose. What's more, we saw even more reasons to have an elected Senate and throw out the encroached Liberals:
I have a solution. We needn't use the official Olympic event when we have all of Vancouver vying for business. Let's have a massive multi-culturalist-ultra-PC celebration of everything Inuit (as I assume seal products and meat are a constituent part of their heritage). Fashion showcases by Inuit designers, Inuit crafts including sealskin boots and coats, street selling of yummy seal-based food out of giant smoking cauldrons, Newfoundlanders selling seal-hunting tours (strictly shooting only). What a party!
According to the Parliament's record, South Shore-St. Margaret MP Gerald Keddy charged that Liberal Senator Mac Harb even wrote a letter to all members of the European Parliament to vote against the Canadian seal hunting industry. Keddy said Harb called Canadians barbaric because of their support for the seal hunt and advised Canada against pursuing international action at the World Trade Organization.
I have a solution. We needn't use the official Olympic event when we have all of Vancouver vying for business. Let's have a massive multi-culturalist-ultra-PC celebration of everything Inuit (as I assume seal products and meat are a constituent part of their heritage). Fashion showcases by Inuit designers, Inuit crafts including sealskin boots and coats, street selling of yummy seal-based food out of giant smoking cauldrons, Newfoundlanders selling seal-hunting tours (strictly shooting only). What a party!
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Got seal?
I endorse the principle of seal hunting. The means can and should be improved, but banning the product in the EU will do no good to improve hunting methods. Actually, faced with decreasing revenue it will be more economically sound for hunters to cut even more corners.
The CBC reports some fears that are easily assuaged:
The beauty of free globalized trade is our ability to sell the skins elsewhere, like countries where tigers are hunted for their penis. In addition, the Italian and French fashion shops can open up showrooms and production lines in countries which can appreciate the amazing comfort, warmth and durability of sealskin products. As everything else coming out of Brussels lately it's a feeble, useless and embarrassing policy.
Long live globalization, free trade, capitalism and the WTO!
Update: Dr Roy reminds how pathetic the EU's excuses are.
The CBC reports some fears that are easily assuaged:
While it allows for the continued shipment of seal products through Europe, promotion of those same products would be prohibited. Sealing industry experts fear that would shut off access to the runways of Italy and France, countries that are highly influential in determining global fashion trends in the larger markets of Russia and China.
The beauty of free globalized trade is our ability to sell the skins elsewhere, like countries where tigers are hunted for their penis. In addition, the Italian and French fashion shops can open up showrooms and production lines in countries which can appreciate the amazing comfort, warmth and durability of sealskin products. As everything else coming out of Brussels lately it's a feeble, useless and embarrassing policy.
Long live globalization, free trade, capitalism and the WTO!
Update: Dr Roy reminds how pathetic the EU's excuses are.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
You can toast with Berlusconi too
I frequently show little or no patriotism in railing against the failings of my own country, Italy, to live up to the standard of a civilized Western democracy. But at the same time I absolutely adore Italians in their ability to look at almost everything with humor and cynicism. Like Berlusconi's divorce and the accusations he secretly mingles around underage girls (rubbish).
Two particular details made Berlusconi's wife - Veronica Lario - boil over. Firstly, her husband never attended his own children's 18th birthday celebrations despite being invited. Secondly the girl in question - stunner Noemi Letizia - is in the habit of calling him "daddy" (papi) and has seen him often with the family and without. Maybe Berlusconi watched "House of Cards" and took it too literally.
Photos of the girl's lavish 18th birthday party have been posted on the internet, and speculation is rife about their authenticity. True to Italian irony, creativity and humoristic prowess the tech-savvy drew their Photoshop weaponry and one guy decided to give them an expressive space.
The result is "Brinda con Papi", or "Toast with Daddy". From Don Vito Corleone to Chewbacca via the Pope, Chairman Mao and Homer Simpson, everyone can toast with Daddy-Berlusconi.
If we couldn't laugh about it, we'd have to cry.
Two particular details made Berlusconi's wife - Veronica Lario - boil over. Firstly, her husband never attended his own children's 18th birthday celebrations despite being invited. Secondly the girl in question - stunner Noemi Letizia - is in the habit of calling him "daddy" (papi) and has seen him often with the family and without. Maybe Berlusconi watched "House of Cards" and took it too literally.
Photos of the girl's lavish 18th birthday party have been posted on the internet, and speculation is rife about their authenticity. True to Italian irony, creativity and humoristic prowess the tech-savvy drew their Photoshop weaponry and one guy decided to give them an expressive space.
The result is "Brinda con Papi", or "Toast with Daddy". From Don Vito Corleone to Chewbacca via the Pope, Chairman Mao and Homer Simpson, everyone can toast with Daddy-Berlusconi.
If we couldn't laugh about it, we'd have to cry.
Tough choices for Gordon Brown
Rocky times for Gordon Brown. His Government lost a vote on Gurkha residency to a Liberal Democrat motion, the MP expenses reform proposals had to be watered down awaiting independent review and half of his MPs are now ready to rebel over plans to sell off a stake of Royal Mail.
The Labour Party has steadily drifted to the left, as was evident years ago with the Trident renewal debate. On that occasion the Government was saved by the Tories voting aye and trumping 88 Labour rebels. Today we see a punitive Budget disenfranchising successful entrepreneurs, consultants and other high earners, smashing the trading gates of the country, and plunging the country into debt.
And despite deputy leader Harriet Harman denying she's vying for Labour leadership (God save us), there is speculation from Times columnist Rachel Sylvester that the party's moderates may see their patience snap. It would definitely help Labour's prospects in the next election.
Looking back at 12 years of Labour rule, we can hardly deny that many policies clearly haven't worked. Top-down management of the NHS has undermined one of the rare examples of good public sector health care, top-down targets in education have driven standards into the pit, solutions to growing youth crime are a farce, immigration is a joke, multiculturalism has failed, the pension fund is bust and the working class is still as miserable as ever. What Gordon Brown proposes is more debt, more taxation and more government.
Labour needs to find a new sense of direction to counter the rising Tories. The false security of leftist politics will eventually kill off Labour, probably prompting defections to the Liberal Democrats among the electorate and even, as rumored, among Labour MPs. Whether or not defections actually happen, the Party is fatigued. Twelve years in government and the failure of their policies have taken their toll: those who should lead can't envision a future anymore.
A moderate takeover of Labour is absolutely necessary. David Cameron will have to contend with a party caucus that's veering to the right should he win the next election in a landslide. Caught between the hammer of an intransigent back bench and the anvil of a leftist Labour, Cameron's number 10 tenure may be very short. And then the country would plunge into a battle between extremes where the golden middle ground of fiscal responsibility and personal liberty will be lost for a long time.
Brown has given himself an additional year as PM (conventionally the general election would have been today) as Parliament isn't due to expire until June 2010. Within this next year he has to either grow cojones and break with the leftists or succumb to Peter Mandelson.
The Labour Party has steadily drifted to the left, as was evident years ago with the Trident renewal debate. On that occasion the Government was saved by the Tories voting aye and trumping 88 Labour rebels. Today we see a punitive Budget disenfranchising successful entrepreneurs, consultants and other high earners, smashing the trading gates of the country, and plunging the country into debt.
And despite deputy leader Harriet Harman denying she's vying for Labour leadership (God save us), there is speculation from Times columnist Rachel Sylvester that the party's moderates may see their patience snap. It would definitely help Labour's prospects in the next election.
Looking back at 12 years of Labour rule, we can hardly deny that many policies clearly haven't worked. Top-down management of the NHS has undermined one of the rare examples of good public sector health care, top-down targets in education have driven standards into the pit, solutions to growing youth crime are a farce, immigration is a joke, multiculturalism has failed, the pension fund is bust and the working class is still as miserable as ever. What Gordon Brown proposes is more debt, more taxation and more government.
Labour needs to find a new sense of direction to counter the rising Tories. The false security of leftist politics will eventually kill off Labour, probably prompting defections to the Liberal Democrats among the electorate and even, as rumored, among Labour MPs. Whether or not defections actually happen, the Party is fatigued. Twelve years in government and the failure of their policies have taken their toll: those who should lead can't envision a future anymore.
A moderate takeover of Labour is absolutely necessary. David Cameron will have to contend with a party caucus that's veering to the right should he win the next election in a landslide. Caught between the hammer of an intransigent back bench and the anvil of a leftist Labour, Cameron's number 10 tenure may be very short. And then the country would plunge into a battle between extremes where the golden middle ground of fiscal responsibility and personal liberty will be lost for a long time.
Brown has given himself an additional year as PM (conventionally the general election would have been today) as Parliament isn't due to expire until June 2010. Within this next year he has to either grow cojones and break with the leftists or succumb to Peter Mandelson.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Take extra care and brace for impact
The WHO confirms 91 cases in the US, with five hospitalizations. Hospitalization rates are therefore constant so far (about 1 in 20). Data from Mexico is mostly stagnant and contradictory (labs aren't working fast enough probably). Confirmed case mortality is 4.35%, which is REALLY BAD.
It seems that the virus is spreading steadily. The alarm started more than two days ago, so despite many people taking precautions (one would assume) they still get it. WHO are right in upping their alert level, and level 6 (maximum) is fairly appropriate. The disease is in three North American countries and has spread to two other WHO regions already.
As laboratory tests make more sense of the data from Mexico (remember: Influenza B is still in season) we should get a clearer picture of how sustainably the virus spreads and who is affected most. Cytokine storms seem to not be confirmed yet, particularly in the out-of-Mexico patients, and in the next few days we should have the answer as to whether or not this virus indeed kills those with healthy immune systems.
Let's wait for solid data about the spread to those who haven't been to Mexico or in close contact with a recent traveler, it should hint more clearly as to how virulent this nasty is. Meanwhile, it seems we're in for a very bumpy ride so don't take flu symptoms lightly.
It seems that the virus is spreading steadily. The alarm started more than two days ago, so despite many people taking precautions (one would assume) they still get it. WHO are right in upping their alert level, and level 6 (maximum) is fairly appropriate. The disease is in three North American countries and has spread to two other WHO regions already.
As laboratory tests make more sense of the data from Mexico (remember: Influenza B is still in season) we should get a clearer picture of how sustainably the virus spreads and who is affected most. Cytokine storms seem to not be confirmed yet, particularly in the out-of-Mexico patients, and in the next few days we should have the answer as to whether or not this virus indeed kills those with healthy immune systems.
Let's wait for solid data about the spread to those who haven't been to Mexico or in close contact with a recent traveler, it should hint more clearly as to how virulent this nasty is. Meanwhile, it seems we're in for a very bumpy ride so don't take flu symptoms lightly.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
NOT a pandemic yet
Swine flu is sweeping the news, but this is not a desperate situation yet. The WHO alert level is 3 out of possible 6, with 1 and 2 being almost complete absence of viruses. Quoting from the WHO website (emphasis mine):
If the virus has maintained its H1N1 characteristics like in 1918, it should cause a cytokine storm, which is an immune system over-reaction. The new strain of swine flu appears to strike young adults indeed, but as Tara Smith, a medically cognizant blogger puts it:
Is this the deadly pandemic we've been overdue for? Looks like it isn't: many people don't even need hospitalization. WHO update of today states (emphasis mine):
So here's the deal: we have a new virus that has reassorted in pigs allowing pig-human transmission and probably combined with a mild flu virus in a human body through simultaneous infection. If it were a pandemic-grade virus Mexico would be sneezing in unison by now.
Therefore take extra care, wash your hands a lot and, if it comes to Canada, be prepared to have a bumpy ride on the flu trolley, as you won't be immune. It doesn't look like the grim reaper at all.
In Phase 3, an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus has caused sporadic cases or small clusters of disease in people, but has not resulted in human-to-human transmission sufficient to sustain community-level outbreaks. Limited human-to-human transmission may occur under some circumstances, for example, when there is close contact between an infected person and an unprotected caregiver. However, limited transmission under such restricted circumstances does not indicate that the virus has gained the level of transmissibility among humans necessary to cause a pandemic.
If the virus has maintained its H1N1 characteristics like in 1918, it should cause a cytokine storm, which is an immune system over-reaction. The new strain of swine flu appears to strike young adults indeed, but as Tara Smith, a medically cognizant blogger puts it:
the data from Mexico (from media reports, at least) are sparse, and only a handful of cases have been confirmed to be caused by the novel swine flu virus. This makes attempts to extrapolate to any larger trends a risky and imprecise endeavor, and the old adage certainly applies: garbage in, garbage out. So right now (again, from media-reported data), we don't know for sure that there really is a higher number of "young and healthy" dying from this virus than we would expect to see--so whether this trend even exists is a big question mark.
Is this the deadly pandemic we've been overdue for? Looks like it isn't: many people don't even need hospitalization. WHO update of today states (emphasis mine):
As of 26 April 2009, the United States Government has reported 20 laboratory confirmed human cases of swine influenza A/H1N1 (8 in New York, 7 in California, 2 in Texas, 2 in Kansas and 1 in Ohio). All 20 cases have had mild Influenza-Like Illness with only one requiring brief hospitalization. No deaths have been reported. All 20 viruses have the same genetic pattern based on preliminary testing. The virus is being described as a new subtype of A/H1N1 not previously detected in swine or humans.
So here's the deal: we have a new virus that has reassorted in pigs allowing pig-human transmission and probably combined with a mild flu virus in a human body through simultaneous infection. If it were a pandemic-grade virus Mexico would be sneezing in unison by now.
Therefore take extra care, wash your hands a lot and, if it comes to Canada, be prepared to have a bumpy ride on the flu trolley, as you won't be immune. It doesn't look like the grim reaper at all.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Why Brits should invest in Canada
The British financial world is in shock after yesterday's Budget, which hikes all taxes and creates yet another tax bracket of 50%. If you earn more than GBP 150k annually (CAD 300k or thereabouts) half of that will go to Gordon Brown. Then you'll pay enormous council tax (on your flat or house), 17% sales tax, GBP 180 for a TV license, et cetera.
150k earners are not low-skilled labor who are employed by manufacturing industries. They are, for instance, managers or financial sector employees. Managers can simply pack it in while financial services can be delivered from your laptop whether you are in a City office or on a Grand Cayman beach. I think you can see where this is going.
Nobody in their right mind will pay 50% of their income off as tax. Alistair Darling has just signed a death sentence for British economic recovery. Canadian tax on that bracket is approximately 29% and Investor/Entrepreneur immigration streams are wide open.
The Investor stream requires one to make a CAD 400k investment (managed by CIC) that will be repaid without interest five years later. Assuming a 5% annual return the gross cost of immigrating to Canada is CAD 110k, or 22k annually. British taxes would have take that from you in two months. Without knowing it, Alistair Darling might just have delivered a massive stimulus to the Canadian economy.
150k earners are not low-skilled labor who are employed by manufacturing industries. They are, for instance, managers or financial sector employees. Managers can simply pack it in while financial services can be delivered from your laptop whether you are in a City office or on a Grand Cayman beach. I think you can see where this is going.
Nobody in their right mind will pay 50% of their income off as tax. Alistair Darling has just signed a death sentence for British economic recovery. Canadian tax on that bracket is approximately 29% and Investor/Entrepreneur immigration streams are wide open.
The Investor stream requires one to make a CAD 400k investment (managed by CIC) that will be repaid without interest five years later. Assuming a 5% annual return the gross cost of immigrating to Canada is CAD 110k, or 22k annually. British taxes would have take that from you in two months. Without knowing it, Alistair Darling might just have delivered a massive stimulus to the Canadian economy.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
What a stupid reason to squabble!
I hardly followed the Mulroney CPC membership story, mainly because it's irrelevant. No really, it is as important an issue for Canada as what I had for breakfast. If Harper's team leaked that in order to show distancing between the current and former PMs, it was monumentally stupid.
Of all the things to leak, it would have been the most irrelevant. Among the media flotsam this is the one piece of debris one is best advised to see float past. How hard can it be?
Naturally, a lapsed membership from your own party's former leader is a clear expression of discontent. The correct way to handle it would have been a quiet phone call, an exchange of opinions and a ready reply for the media when the story eventually broke. I doubt Mulroney is upset because his party won't stand rock-solid behind him and do everything to avoid him facing an inquiry. I would, however, be upset myself were I treated by my former supporters as Mulroney has been.
With the touch, class and subtlety of a sledgehammer Harper ordered ties cut with Mulroney. Then the party refused to say whether Mulroney was a member or not. Now, with party squabbles and cover-up attempts in the open, some expect Harper to put some stick about and make some disagreeing heads roll. If I got that right, this is madness.
Harper should have advised his own, in the interest of fairness, to avoid making strong statements either supporting or condemning Mulroney, hinting that the inquiry wouldn't be put pressure on in any way and Mulroney would have to prove his innocence. That would've shown distancing without excommunication. Then, when news of the membership broke out, Harper should have revealed Mulroney's membership status, called up the former PM and, worst come to worst, admit to the disagreements and brush off further questions with some witticism.
Today the Prime Minister should be furious at the leaks (obviously), admit that the matter has gone too far, say whether Mulroney's membership is still valid, recognize his cock-up and tell the press he had a phone conversation with Mulroney where they overcame disagreements and got back on good terms. He's obviously done that, hasn't he?
Arguments happen and they are not solved by denial and hatchet. For Christ's sake!
Of all the things to leak, it would have been the most irrelevant. Among the media flotsam this is the one piece of debris one is best advised to see float past. How hard can it be?
Naturally, a lapsed membership from your own party's former leader is a clear expression of discontent. The correct way to handle it would have been a quiet phone call, an exchange of opinions and a ready reply for the media when the story eventually broke. I doubt Mulroney is upset because his party won't stand rock-solid behind him and do everything to avoid him facing an inquiry. I would, however, be upset myself were I treated by my former supporters as Mulroney has been.
With the touch, class and subtlety of a sledgehammer Harper ordered ties cut with Mulroney. Then the party refused to say whether Mulroney was a member or not. Now, with party squabbles and cover-up attempts in the open, some expect Harper to put some stick about and make some disagreeing heads roll. If I got that right, this is madness.
Harper should have advised his own, in the interest of fairness, to avoid making strong statements either supporting or condemning Mulroney, hinting that the inquiry wouldn't be put pressure on in any way and Mulroney would have to prove his innocence. That would've shown distancing without excommunication. Then, when news of the membership broke out, Harper should have revealed Mulroney's membership status, called up the former PM and, worst come to worst, admit to the disagreements and brush off further questions with some witticism.
Today the Prime Minister should be furious at the leaks (obviously), admit that the matter has gone too far, say whether Mulroney's membership is still valid, recognize his cock-up and tell the press he had a phone conversation with Mulroney where they overcame disagreements and got back on good terms. He's obviously done that, hasn't he?
Arguments happen and they are not solved by denial and hatchet. For Christ's sake!
Monday, 20 April 2009
Absur-ban 2
Several E.U. delegations walk out of the Durban II conference because the Iranian President spewed antisemitism from the podium, he later accuses Israel of being a "racist" government while being on the receiving end of the same charge from protesters dressed as clowns. If that isn't a circus, I don't know what is.
Why go through the trouble of attending and walking out? Every government knew Durban 2 would be an Israel bash-fest, a conference on racism though anything but "anti". Delusional France evidently hoped the muddle of Middle-Eastern theocracies, African dictatorships and world rejects would suddenly have a mass epiphany. In the same fashion of the Maginot line unwarranted French flights of fancy again crash with a loud thud to the sound of thunderous ridicule.
Little do Ban Ki Moon's attempt at conciliation achieve. His performance at the conference should be the UN's swan song, as an organization hijacked through its own weaknesses and delusions. When you let powers extraneous to your principles become majority in your own organs, don't be surprised when your best members desert you.
So let Ban Ki Moon keep his Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad,Chavez and Bashir. We have the G8, and that suffices. Wouldn't hurt kicking Russia out of it, either.
Update: Dr Roy is on the same wavelength, wondering why EU delegations attended in the first place
Why go through the trouble of attending and walking out? Every government knew Durban 2 would be an Israel bash-fest, a conference on racism though anything but "anti". Delusional France evidently hoped the muddle of Middle-Eastern theocracies, African dictatorships and world rejects would suddenly have a mass epiphany. In the same fashion of the Maginot line unwarranted French flights of fancy again crash with a loud thud to the sound of thunderous ridicule.
Little do Ban Ki Moon's attempt at conciliation achieve. His performance at the conference should be the UN's swan song, as an organization hijacked through its own weaknesses and delusions. When you let powers extraneous to your principles become majority in your own organs, don't be surprised when your best members desert you.
So let Ban Ki Moon keep his Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad,Chavez and Bashir. We have the G8, and that suffices. Wouldn't hurt kicking Russia out of it, either.
Update: Dr Roy is on the same wavelength, wondering why EU delegations attended in the first place
Sunday, 19 April 2009
What game is Iran playing?
After Roxana Saberi was found guilty of espionage by an Iranian court, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself calls for a fair appeal hearing, allowing Saberi to mount a full defence. Something is fishy.
If the Iranian President wanted a truly fair trial of the reporter, he would have invoked fairness right from the beginning of proceedings. An Obama administration would be incapable of reacting strongly to her sentencing, and Iran could have continued on its path of oppression and international disgrace. Why this politically unwarranted sudden turn?
Bloomberg suggests Iran may wish to reverse Saberi's conviction on appeal "to show magnanimity". Call it what you may, it isn't justice. True justice and fairness are independent of political expediency, and if Saberi is innocent she should be free now, not later on a whim of politically motivated magnanimity and a smoke screen of false and una tantum fairness.
This call for fairness smells of machination. Her appeal will probably be fair, she may well be freed and have the charged against her overturned. The outcome will be disastrous for the US either way though. A seemingly fair trial orchestrated to return a guilty verdict will discredit Obama's allegation of the original charges being baseless. An aquittal will instead lend Ahmadinejad credibility in the eyes of many Ayatollah apologists in the West.
I do hope the appeal is successful, but the price to pay will be steep. Ahmadinejad will expect quid pro quo, and the upcoming nuclear negotiations will provide the excellent opportunity for the godfather to clain the return of a favor. I can bet five bucks the appeal hearings will be scheduled during or right after the nuclear negotiations, and Saberi will be used to put pressure on the US envoys.
The only way for the US not to be indebted is to reject this opening as vehemently as they can, and I don't have the guts to advocate such a course of action.
If the Iranian President wanted a truly fair trial of the reporter, he would have invoked fairness right from the beginning of proceedings. An Obama administration would be incapable of reacting strongly to her sentencing, and Iran could have continued on its path of oppression and international disgrace. Why this politically unwarranted sudden turn?
Bloomberg suggests Iran may wish to reverse Saberi's conviction on appeal "to show magnanimity". Call it what you may, it isn't justice. True justice and fairness are independent of political expediency, and if Saberi is innocent she should be free now, not later on a whim of politically motivated magnanimity and a smoke screen of false and una tantum fairness.
This call for fairness smells of machination. Her appeal will probably be fair, she may well be freed and have the charged against her overturned. The outcome will be disastrous for the US either way though. A seemingly fair trial orchestrated to return a guilty verdict will discredit Obama's allegation of the original charges being baseless. An aquittal will instead lend Ahmadinejad credibility in the eyes of many Ayatollah apologists in the West.
I do hope the appeal is successful, but the price to pay will be steep. Ahmadinejad will expect quid pro quo, and the upcoming nuclear negotiations will provide the excellent opportunity for the godfather to clain the return of a favor. I can bet five bucks the appeal hearings will be scheduled during or right after the nuclear negotiations, and Saberi will be used to put pressure on the US envoys.
The only way for the US not to be indebted is to reject this opening as vehemently as they can, and I don't have the guts to advocate such a course of action.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Oh, pleeeeease!
Canadian Centre for Policy Obviousness: tax cuts impact quality of life. Duh!
The research lauds public spending, income redistribution and big government. Most of the commenters embrace the cause of the righteous "poor" against the greedy "rich". I can just see the massive gov't-o-gasm sweeping the left-minded in the nation.
I cry "crock!". Public education, public healthcare, public infrastructure building and merit goods are welcome in my books, as long as they are properly administered and I get value for money. Hiring five managers for every medical staff in the national health system will impact my quality of life negatively while increasing taxes. A tax cut that will force the firing of 90% of managing positions will increase my quality of life because I will have more money and a more streamlined health service.
I want public services of a value equivalent to my tax. Cutting taxes isn't about taking and giving, it's about making public services more efficient. Do we need ten managers for a library? Obviously no, and firing them to save money because of a tax cut isn't going to make my life any worse.
Assuming economics is a zero-sum game is childish. But then, tax advocates are just that: children who cry "Mommy", and mama is in Ottawa.
The research lauds public spending, income redistribution and big government. Most of the commenters embrace the cause of the righteous "poor" against the greedy "rich". I can just see the massive gov't-o-gasm sweeping the left-minded in the nation.
I cry "crock!". Public education, public healthcare, public infrastructure building and merit goods are welcome in my books, as long as they are properly administered and I get value for money. Hiring five managers for every medical staff in the national health system will impact my quality of life negatively while increasing taxes. A tax cut that will force the firing of 90% of managing positions will increase my quality of life because I will have more money and a more streamlined health service.
I want public services of a value equivalent to my tax. Cutting taxes isn't about taking and giving, it's about making public services more efficient. Do we need ten managers for a library? Obviously no, and firing them to save money because of a tax cut isn't going to make my life any worse.
Assuming economics is a zero-sum game is childish. But then, tax advocates are just that: children who cry "Mommy", and mama is in Ottawa.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
At last the bleeding hearts get it
Britain's liberal bleeding hearts finally plan to cut benefits to chronic addicts who do not seek treatment. At long last, and not a second too soon.
The welfare state is not an evil in and of itself. If people be helped in times of need, so be it. When one's in need, however, one does not indulge, and despite all the excuses that the urges of addiction are hard to resist, the crack just doesn't smoke itself. Therefore giving addicts and alcoholics the shove to do something about their condition is finally a step in the right direction.
In times of economic crisis, it is not for the State to cuddle its socialist ego with wasteful welfare that fuels crime, destroys communities and burdens the health system.
The welfare state is not an evil in and of itself. If people be helped in times of need, so be it. When one's in need, however, one does not indulge, and despite all the excuses that the urges of addiction are hard to resist, the crack just doesn't smoke itself. Therefore giving addicts and alcoholics the shove to do something about their condition is finally a step in the right direction.
In times of economic crisis, it is not for the State to cuddle its socialist ego with wasteful welfare that fuels crime, destroys communities and burdens the health system.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
This just takes the biscuit!
Gambler sues casinos because they let him in! For crying out loud, when did people start forgetting that when you have a problem, you deal with it?
It isn't like the guy was in denial either: he submitted his name and picture to a "kick me out, maybe" list, which he then claims was laxly enforced and "caused" him to lose more money, his home and his job. This is not a case of someone profiteering from someone else's addiction, it's a case of trying to deny one's responsibility for one's own actions.
When you realize you have a problem, you seek help. Compulsive gambling isn't something one can solve going cold-turkey, and this is a case-in-point. The list he refers to as his bridge to salvation (not!) is merely a recommendation that gambling joints consider ejecting him from the premises. It isn't a ban list, ergo casinos can do whatever they like.
I do hope this case is thrown out and the guy gets the professional help he needs. Had he been smarter, after acknowledging the problem he would have sought the help of a psychologist. It would have been much cheaper than relying on casinos enforcing a weak recommendation.
I gamble from time to time. I go into the casino with nothing but the cash I think I can afford to spend. I never need to take my debit card out, because after losing about 30% of my bankroll I get royally bored, and prefer spending the rest on beer. If I can be this responsible at 23, I can reasonably expect others to be even wiser at older ages. Which is why I have no sympathy for Peter Dennis.
It isn't like the guy was in denial either: he submitted his name and picture to a "kick me out, maybe" list, which he then claims was laxly enforced and "caused" him to lose more money, his home and his job. This is not a case of someone profiteering from someone else's addiction, it's a case of trying to deny one's responsibility for one's own actions.
When you realize you have a problem, you seek help. Compulsive gambling isn't something one can solve going cold-turkey, and this is a case-in-point. The list he refers to as his bridge to salvation (not!) is merely a recommendation that gambling joints consider ejecting him from the premises. It isn't a ban list, ergo casinos can do whatever they like.
I do hope this case is thrown out and the guy gets the professional help he needs. Had he been smarter, after acknowledging the problem he would have sought the help of a psychologist. It would have been much cheaper than relying on casinos enforcing a weak recommendation.
I gamble from time to time. I go into the casino with nothing but the cash I think I can afford to spend. I never need to take my debit card out, because after losing about 30% of my bankroll I get royally bored, and prefer spending the rest on beer. If I can be this responsible at 23, I can reasonably expect others to be even wiser at older ages. Which is why I have no sympathy for Peter Dennis.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Quantitative screwing
Central banking authorities around the world are jumping onto the bailout-zero-interest-never-mind-the-savers bandwagon. After the Fed and the Bank of England began musing about "quantitative easing", euphemism for "printing money", now pressure seems to mount on the ECB to follow suit.
I watched the loonie go under, standing at 1.67 to the Euro as I write. I also watched the greenback soar to 1.25 Canadian in the past months, making flying into the US impossible on my budget. To top it off, the British pound, long regarded as the most expensive and safest currency of a developed country, is down to almost parity with the Euro, trading at 1.46 US/GBP against 1.36 US/Euro. Factor in the commissions and the usual tweaking and Bang! it's one-for-one.
Does anybody know a country whose currency
1) Is not dependent on a commodity price
2) is regulated by a non-interventionist central bank
3) won't be used by a liberal government to bail out failed industries?
I have a fair Euro savings account, and I won't watch its value wiped out by a printing press.
I watched the loonie go under, standing at 1.67 to the Euro as I write. I also watched the greenback soar to 1.25 Canadian in the past months, making flying into the US impossible on my budget. To top it off, the British pound, long regarded as the most expensive and safest currency of a developed country, is down to almost parity with the Euro, trading at 1.46 US/GBP against 1.36 US/Euro. Factor in the commissions and the usual tweaking and Bang! it's one-for-one.
Does anybody know a country whose currency
1) Is not dependent on a commodity price
2) is regulated by a non-interventionist central bank
3) won't be used by a liberal government to bail out failed industries?
I have a fair Euro savings account, and I won't watch its value wiped out by a printing press.
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Told ya so!
Krazy at the Broom points out that a European Union - commissioned inquiry into the August 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia was started by Georgia. I always maintained and argued that was the case. Not because I'm a pro-Russian nut, but because I don't buy into Western delusions.
Just because a government declares itself friendly to the West and looks to NATO and the EU doesn't mean it is a democratic, legitimate or intelligent government. Saakashvili, the Georgian president, has no grasp of international politics and lives in his own la-la-land where he can prod Russia and the West will not only support him, but defend him in battle when the fuse blows.
Russia has no use for such a pawn, or for the two breakaway regions straddling the Russia-Georgia border. There's nothing to be had there except mountains, poverty, smuggling, regional ethnic hates and trouble begging to boil over. But when a hostile government breaches a ceasefire treaty and starts shelling your own citizens, one has to react and bury the enemy's army under a cloud of Grad missiles.
The August conflict taught Georgia a lesson: the pawn cooled his heats and toned down the rhetoric. Until that nut is ousted from office, the Caucasus will always remain a gunpowder barrel ready to unleash its shock waves.
Just because a government declares itself friendly to the West and looks to NATO and the EU doesn't mean it is a democratic, legitimate or intelligent government. Saakashvili, the Georgian president, has no grasp of international politics and lives in his own la-la-land where he can prod Russia and the West will not only support him, but defend him in battle when the fuse blows.
Russia has no use for such a pawn, or for the two breakaway regions straddling the Russia-Georgia border. There's nothing to be had there except mountains, poverty, smuggling, regional ethnic hates and trouble begging to boil over. But when a hostile government breaches a ceasefire treaty and starts shelling your own citizens, one has to react and bury the enemy's army under a cloud of Grad missiles.
The August conflict taught Georgia a lesson: the pawn cooled his heats and toned down the rhetoric. Until that nut is ousted from office, the Caucasus will always remain a gunpowder barrel ready to unleash its shock waves.
Monday, 23 March 2009
Death of a currency, rebirth of an economy
The Zimbabwe dollar is dead and no-one is there to mourn it. Faced with an inflation rate described with double-digit exponentials, the country resorted to the least evil solution the precarious government could come up with: bury the currency.
Other hyperinflation episodes had been tackled with a variety of policies, including the famous "shock therapy" that entailed transforming the economy into a free market overnight. Obviously this option wasn't on the table in Harare. A dictator still in power with a loyal police and military cannot be made to accept sweeping reform. Incidentally, abandoning the national currency resulted in a remarkably great arrangement: three separate currencies can today be used in Zimbabwe, shielding the economy from the danger of a single foreign collapse (unless contagion sets in).
Today, Zimbabwean hyperinflation is over and its central bank has lost all its inflationary powers. It is a godsend to monetarists. Watch Zimbabwe, it might be the story of an economic miracle brought by the demise of a berserk central banking authority.
Other hyperinflation episodes had been tackled with a variety of policies, including the famous "shock therapy" that entailed transforming the economy into a free market overnight. Obviously this option wasn't on the table in Harare. A dictator still in power with a loyal police and military cannot be made to accept sweeping reform. Incidentally, abandoning the national currency resulted in a remarkably great arrangement: three separate currencies can today be used in Zimbabwe, shielding the economy from the danger of a single foreign collapse (unless contagion sets in).
Today, Zimbabwean hyperinflation is over and its central bank has lost all its inflationary powers. It is a godsend to monetarists. Watch Zimbabwe, it might be the story of an economic miracle brought by the demise of a berserk central banking authority.
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
House rules
Gerry Nicholls recommends Conservatives angry at Harper after his Manning Centre conference speech should join "Homeless Cons", a site for those conservative-minded who do not feel at home in conservative parties. I won't.
In every house there's house rules, and Harper is adamant that his rules be respected in his Party. Thus "I am Stephen Harper, thy Prime Minister, and thou shall have no other Prime Ministers before me". No wonder. Small-c and libertarian conservatives should, more constructively, organize within the Tory party and get their own faction leader.
I cite the Tory Reform Group, who can be defined as the libertarian wing of the UK Conservative party. They are notoriously at odds with the rest of UK Tories over Europe, being much less Euro-skeptic than their peers. Yet they remain loyal Tories and work constructively through speeches and publications to promote a more favorable view of the EU within the party. Their influence has dwindled in past years, yet most of them are still Tory members and voters.
That's what we've got to do too. Instead of claiming being orphans we should recognize who is top dog right now (Stephen Harper), organize into a loyal faction and have our voice heard within the party. When push comes to shove a credible faction leader can lay a strong leadership bid. Just because we don't agree with our current leader doesn't mean we're not welcome. In time our effort, loyalty and work can pay off with a leader from our ranks.
Homeless Cons may give some the comfort of knowing they're not alone in their disillusionment. It is not a surrogate for changing Party policy. If the libertarians go, their ideas will be confined to the "Theory" drawer. Between sulking and grinding, I choose the latter.
In every house there's house rules, and Harper is adamant that his rules be respected in his Party. Thus "I am Stephen Harper, thy Prime Minister, and thou shall have no other Prime Ministers before me". No wonder. Small-c and libertarian conservatives should, more constructively, organize within the Tory party and get their own faction leader.
I cite the Tory Reform Group, who can be defined as the libertarian wing of the UK Conservative party. They are notoriously at odds with the rest of UK Tories over Europe, being much less Euro-skeptic than their peers. Yet they remain loyal Tories and work constructively through speeches and publications to promote a more favorable view of the EU within the party. Their influence has dwindled in past years, yet most of them are still Tory members and voters.
That's what we've got to do too. Instead of claiming being orphans we should recognize who is top dog right now (Stephen Harper), organize into a loyal faction and have our voice heard within the party. When push comes to shove a credible faction leader can lay a strong leadership bid. Just because we don't agree with our current leader doesn't mean we're not welcome. In time our effort, loyalty and work can pay off with a leader from our ranks.
Homeless Cons may give some the comfort of knowing they're not alone in their disillusionment. It is not a surrogate for changing Party policy. If the libertarians go, their ideas will be confined to the "Theory" drawer. Between sulking and grinding, I choose the latter.
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
In defence of Harper's speech
I read the transcript of Harper's speech to the MCBD conference and did not find it as upsetting as other conservatives have. When Harper claims Wall Street abused its freedoms he says nothing but the truth: bad debt was peddled as solid gold through CDOs and auditing companies abused (more like didn't use) their freedom to write off some securities as junk. The present credit crisis is a gigantic systematic screw-up with no justification, as the entire economy bought into a Ponzi scheme by whose comparison Bernard Madoff is an innocent lamb.
Truth is, whatever we may seek to blame the crisis on it lands two personalities on the defendant's bench: social engineering and immorality. Liberals are to blame for the former (bullying banks for the sake of equal home ownership), while conservatives could take the blame for the latter. As the idea that looks to the future, conservatives in America failed to emphasize the concept of added value and ownership.
Handing out junk mortgages for the simple sake of selling a garbage CDO isn't banking, isn't libertarian and isn't moral. Giving mortgages with a policy to add value to the branch's area, hoping to attract more professionals, more banking business and more wealth is added-value lending.
Example: a young professional is more likely to marry and make career progress. This means he or she will put more money in a savings account and bring another customer to the bank while paying back the mortgage. As more young professionals move in, the area gets gentrified, more affluent and requires more banking. That's looking to the future from a conservative perspective.
When you give out a mortgage, it's your money in play. Until we hammer this concept back into the system we will not learn any lessons from this mess. That's ownership. You own the house, but I own the risk. If ownership is the nail and regulation is the hammer, so be it. We are defending a free market in which everyone passed the buck together with a time bomb. It ain't right. Banning CDOs won't work (after all, solid debt is still debt) but we can't keep them in their present form either.
Harper's emphasis on family and faith isn't big news either, nor is it an ultimatum to libertarians. The family is the foundation of society and Harper's faith in the speech's context is the belief in the existence of good and evil beyond mere economic calculation. Don't libertarians believe in morals too? Where's the problem? Fears of a socially conservative agenda are easily assuaged: if the so-cons even try it, we will have 1993 all over again.
Harper's speech is simply stating that there's a mess to sort out and it's not just liberals who are to blame. Those balking at government spending didn't have the prospect of losing one's seat in the PMO.
He could have said some things better, and I for one take offence at the allegation that libertarians don't like to take responsibility. It's the faux libertarians who are ready to go liberal at the turn of the tide, whom we tried to defend as members of the free market who refuse to be responsible for the cleanup. True libertarians will not peddle garbage and true libertarians will not ask for a bailout.
Harper didn't walk into a libertarian meeting with the intention of alienating his audience, he still wants to win elections (duh). He merely wanted to set the record straight, that things will change after this crisis toward a more qualitative rather than quantitative approach and if someone wants to criticize the stimulus one should first try stepping into the PM's shoes. Imagine handing over the country to Dion, Layton and Duceppe, who would undo almost three years of hard work grinding through the slimmest minority.
I still like Harper. True he still throws out the occasional bungle or two, but the man has cojones. He came out in the heart of dissent and faced it head-on. We should take it as an opportunity: he is now up to discussing policy rather than just politics. We can take offence and sulk, or we can respond. This time we'll have more public attention because the media portrays it as if Harper's bullying us. Nothing's further from the truth. Were he a bully, he wouldn't have come into the Manning conference.
Truth is, whatever we may seek to blame the crisis on it lands two personalities on the defendant's bench: social engineering and immorality. Liberals are to blame for the former (bullying banks for the sake of equal home ownership), while conservatives could take the blame for the latter. As the idea that looks to the future, conservatives in America failed to emphasize the concept of added value and ownership.
Handing out junk mortgages for the simple sake of selling a garbage CDO isn't banking, isn't libertarian and isn't moral. Giving mortgages with a policy to add value to the branch's area, hoping to attract more professionals, more banking business and more wealth is added-value lending.
Example: a young professional is more likely to marry and make career progress. This means he or she will put more money in a savings account and bring another customer to the bank while paying back the mortgage. As more young professionals move in, the area gets gentrified, more affluent and requires more banking. That's looking to the future from a conservative perspective.
When you give out a mortgage, it's your money in play. Until we hammer this concept back into the system we will not learn any lessons from this mess. That's ownership. You own the house, but I own the risk. If ownership is the nail and regulation is the hammer, so be it. We are defending a free market in which everyone passed the buck together with a time bomb. It ain't right. Banning CDOs won't work (after all, solid debt is still debt) but we can't keep them in their present form either.
Harper's emphasis on family and faith isn't big news either, nor is it an ultimatum to libertarians. The family is the foundation of society and Harper's faith in the speech's context is the belief in the existence of good and evil beyond mere economic calculation. Don't libertarians believe in morals too? Where's the problem? Fears of a socially conservative agenda are easily assuaged: if the so-cons even try it, we will have 1993 all over again.
Harper's speech is simply stating that there's a mess to sort out and it's not just liberals who are to blame. Those balking at government spending didn't have the prospect of losing one's seat in the PMO.
He could have said some things better, and I for one take offence at the allegation that libertarians don't like to take responsibility. It's the faux libertarians who are ready to go liberal at the turn of the tide, whom we tried to defend as members of the free market who refuse to be responsible for the cleanup. True libertarians will not peddle garbage and true libertarians will not ask for a bailout.
Harper didn't walk into a libertarian meeting with the intention of alienating his audience, he still wants to win elections (duh). He merely wanted to set the record straight, that things will change after this crisis toward a more qualitative rather than quantitative approach and if someone wants to criticize the stimulus one should first try stepping into the PM's shoes. Imagine handing over the country to Dion, Layton and Duceppe, who would undo almost three years of hard work grinding through the slimmest minority.
I still like Harper. True he still throws out the occasional bungle or two, but the man has cojones. He came out in the heart of dissent and faced it head-on. We should take it as an opportunity: he is now up to discussing policy rather than just politics. We can take offence and sulk, or we can respond. This time we'll have more public attention because the media portrays it as if Harper's bullying us. Nothing's further from the truth. Were he a bully, he wouldn't have come into the Manning conference.
Monday, 16 March 2009
Abusus non tollit usum
If you are irresponsible it's still your fault. Emotion-ridden proposals to sue alcohol-producing companies for fetal alcohol damage are beyond laughable, particularly so when coming from a healthcare professional.
Mothers who abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy are behaving irresponsibly because they disregard the consequences, ergo they don't give a damn about the life they are carrying and destroying within. Feed me no nonsense about it being society's fault, if you drink or shoot up it's still you doing it and no-one is forcing you to. When someone wants to destroy themselves, take alcohol away from them and they will find other ways to throw their lives in the bin, like hard drugs or stabbing others for fun. Because we can't expect booze sellers and producers to take such lawsuits lightly; they will simply pack up shop and move their business to higher health professional IQ areas.
Truth is we can't eliminate or reliably prevent FASD. Education and awareness campaigns can only go as far as the recipient's common sense can take them. Irresponsible mothers will keep popping hard liquor and babies, in that order, while social services will keep popping in to take the kids away and give them to more deserving families. All we can do is jail mums whose children have FASD, inventing a crime of alcohol abuse during pregnancy. Where would that take us?
Booze is great, as myself and many other happy responsible drinkers will no doubt vouch for. We support local businesses that produce and sell good liquor products, we have a great time and thus contribute both to GDP and HDI. The misuse of this resource is no reason to force a liquor price increase for companies to cope with pay-outs for someone else's stupidity. Moreover, the inevitable higher booze prices will push the addicts into either crime to procure the money or more accessible hard drugs. Now there we'd have a BIG problem.
Mothers who abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy are behaving irresponsibly because they disregard the consequences, ergo they don't give a damn about the life they are carrying and destroying within. Feed me no nonsense about it being society's fault, if you drink or shoot up it's still you doing it and no-one is forcing you to. When someone wants to destroy themselves, take alcohol away from them and they will find other ways to throw their lives in the bin, like hard drugs or stabbing others for fun. Because we can't expect booze sellers and producers to take such lawsuits lightly; they will simply pack up shop and move their business to higher health professional IQ areas.
Truth is we can't eliminate or reliably prevent FASD. Education and awareness campaigns can only go as far as the recipient's common sense can take them. Irresponsible mothers will keep popping hard liquor and babies, in that order, while social services will keep popping in to take the kids away and give them to more deserving families. All we can do is jail mums whose children have FASD, inventing a crime of alcohol abuse during pregnancy. Where would that take us?
Booze is great, as myself and many other happy responsible drinkers will no doubt vouch for. We support local businesses that produce and sell good liquor products, we have a great time and thus contribute both to GDP and HDI. The misuse of this resource is no reason to force a liquor price increase for companies to cope with pay-outs for someone else's stupidity. Moreover, the inevitable higher booze prices will push the addicts into either crime to procure the money or more accessible hard drugs. Now there we'd have a BIG problem.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Schmulticulturalism
Or stupid is as stupid does. Calgary's Asian communities seem to revolt against the latest piece of decerebrate multicultural mumbo-jumbo: an "asian mall" to be built from scratch.
In a free, democratic and business-oriented country it is your right to set up shop wherever you want selling whatever is legal. The wonks at Calgary town hall somehow think an "Asian Mall" will cater to the local community. What it will do, instead, is almost certainly deprive the local community of choice, make it feel marginalized and isolated (isn't this what multiculturalism is about?) and ghetto-ize the area.
Were the local community to demand almost exclusively Asian-imported products, any shop not selling the appropriate stuff would be bust within a month in a local mall, leaving space for Asian shops. I am convinced, differing from Calgary town hall folk, that a free market would make a mall into an "Asian" one if it were truly needed.
Big Papa planners assume everyone is as close-minded as them, ergo a strong local Asian community will only buy Asian. This kind of paternalism spells the end of multiculturalism, as those who are supposed to welcome this with open arms rebel against being classified, labeled, itemized and trumped.
In a free, democratic and business-oriented country it is your right to set up shop wherever you want selling whatever is legal. The wonks at Calgary town hall somehow think an "Asian Mall" will cater to the local community. What it will do, instead, is almost certainly deprive the local community of choice, make it feel marginalized and isolated (isn't this what multiculturalism is about?) and ghetto-ize the area.
Were the local community to demand almost exclusively Asian-imported products, any shop not selling the appropriate stuff would be bust within a month in a local mall, leaving space for Asian shops. I am convinced, differing from Calgary town hall folk, that a free market would make a mall into an "Asian" one if it were truly needed.
Big Papa planners assume everyone is as close-minded as them, ergo a strong local Asian community will only buy Asian. This kind of paternalism spells the end of multiculturalism, as those who are supposed to welcome this with open arms rebel against being classified, labeled, itemized and trumped.
Friday, 6 March 2009
What would God say?
The excommunication of a raped pregnant girl's mother and the doctors who practiced the abortion in Brazil is yet another stumble by the Catholic Church. Though objection to abortion is legitimate, this case was unquestionably abhorrent, and advocating that a nine year old girl carry out a twin pregnancy and have a C-section is bordering lunacy.
Yet we are no strangers to a resurgent extremism in the Catholic Church. With the benefit of a former head Inquisitor (they now call it "Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith), the Vatican has endorsed outbursts of medieval power hunger. According to Corriere della Sera, the Vatican has lent its aegis to Archbishop Sobrinho, who not only ordered the excommunications but claimed that Church law is above State law.
What conclusions can we draw from this show of mediocrity (hint: Sobrinho is wrong)? In a world drifting toward secularism, the Church can apparently either succumb to relativism or to its antithesis, radical conservatism. In both cases, it would implode. The synthesis, on the other hand, remains to be found. It is definitely possible to reconcile a religious moral teaching within a secular legislative framework, as long as no participant expects to rule over the other's jurisdiction. The failure to grasp this simple rule is leading the Catholic Church to its demise.
The excommunication is within the Church's right, combined with lack of it in the rapist's case it becomes a right to hypocrisy. This case will further alienate more laymen from the Catholic church, in a dangerous drift that leads to his most zealous advocates confining Christ to an isolated minority niche. In all this brouhaha, I thank my parents' actions that led to me being baptized Orthodox, for my Church never expected me to belittle the importance of the law of the land I live in.
Yet we are no strangers to a resurgent extremism in the Catholic Church. With the benefit of a former head Inquisitor (they now call it "Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith), the Vatican has endorsed outbursts of medieval power hunger. According to Corriere della Sera, the Vatican has lent its aegis to Archbishop Sobrinho, who not only ordered the excommunications but claimed that Church law is above State law.
What conclusions can we draw from this show of mediocrity (hint: Sobrinho is wrong)? In a world drifting toward secularism, the Church can apparently either succumb to relativism or to its antithesis, radical conservatism. In both cases, it would implode. The synthesis, on the other hand, remains to be found. It is definitely possible to reconcile a religious moral teaching within a secular legislative framework, as long as no participant expects to rule over the other's jurisdiction. The failure to grasp this simple rule is leading the Catholic Church to its demise.
The excommunication is within the Church's right, combined with lack of it in the rapist's case it becomes a right to hypocrisy. This case will further alienate more laymen from the Catholic church, in a dangerous drift that leads to his most zealous advocates confining Christ to an isolated minority niche. In all this brouhaha, I thank my parents' actions that led to me being baptized Orthodox, for my Church never expected me to belittle the importance of the law of the land I live in.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Iggy's salami tactics
Jarret rightly points out that Ignatieff is now targeting Western ridings in an attempt to rebuild the Liberal party fortunes. The Hill Times article he references is a fairly stark warning, albeit with a couple misconceptions, to the federal Tories.
The days of "Vote for me just because my ideas are good" are no longer, and we have an opponent who is prepared to fire his campaign machine selectively. To make matters more difficult (for us), Ignatieff is the kind of guy who recognizes that the Party has a problem, and has been doing so since Dion's leadership bid.
I for one welcome Ignatieff's and Goodale's strategies. They show maturity and an appreciation of reality. Tories hold "crackable" ridings, which in the current situation are solely for us to lose. As we expand our reach toward a majority, every riding is precious. The Liberals, on the other hand, stand to gain a lot while risking little.
To borrow a "Yes, Prime Minister" quote, Iggy aims to slice our minority riding by riding, election after election. Keeping the Conservative Party in a weaker and weaker minority will help Grits and Dippers dictate policy and trigger elections when their campaign machines are ready for another knife touch to the Tory support bologna roll.
Am I the only one to see this both as dangerous to the CPC and a welcome change in Canadian political strategy? "Character assassination" as Dion called it has seen its heyday, as has slamming past mistakes and past policy proposals. Sure recalling broken "no-coalition" promises may catch a few people's attention, but if we are to resist the new Liberal selective fire we have to win on our own merits and out of our own skill, not the clumsiness of the Opposition.
The days of "Vote for me just because my ideas are good" are no longer, and we have an opponent who is prepared to fire his campaign machine selectively. To make matters more difficult (for us), Ignatieff is the kind of guy who recognizes that the Party has a problem, and has been doing so since Dion's leadership bid.
"God knows this party has made mistakes out in Western Canada and I know them," Mr. Ignatieff said. "We have to be honest enough with our neighbours and citizens to say, we didn't always get it right. We didn't always listen with respect. We didn't always understand what had to be done'."
I for one welcome Ignatieff's and Goodale's strategies. They show maturity and an appreciation of reality. Tories hold "crackable" ridings, which in the current situation are solely for us to lose. As we expand our reach toward a majority, every riding is precious. The Liberals, on the other hand, stand to gain a lot while risking little.
To borrow a "Yes, Prime Minister" quote, Iggy aims to slice our minority riding by riding, election after election. Keeping the Conservative Party in a weaker and weaker minority will help Grits and Dippers dictate policy and trigger elections when their campaign machines are ready for another knife touch to the Tory support bologna roll.
Am I the only one to see this both as dangerous to the CPC and a welcome change in Canadian political strategy? "Character assassination" as Dion called it has seen its heyday, as has slamming past mistakes and past policy proposals. Sure recalling broken "no-coalition" promises may catch a few people's attention, but if we are to resist the new Liberal selective fire we have to win on our own merits and out of our own skill, not the clumsiness of the Opposition.
Saturday, 21 February 2009
One-size-burns-all
Quebec teachers burn out by the dozen. With anxiety, stress and depression on the rise (according to union stats) those who are to ensure Quebec's intellectual future reach their breaking point and refuse to cope passively with the system. From walking out on a misbehaving class to taking long term leave, a signal is sent that something just isn't right.
Before we suspect malicious intent, let's stop and think. Let us now imagine the frustration of discovering that your students don't care for your knowledge, that you may not uphold your right to be respected as a superior and a teacher, that there's always someone who will expect more and more of you without any right to demand it but their own perceived worth of your skill. I would quake too, and throw everything to the dogs.
One of the oft-cited concerns is the integration of special-needs students in the classrooms. Though everyone has the right to education, let's be honest and admit that learning is not something that can be fit into a one-size-fits-all model. Some may be inclined to interpretation rather than calculation, some will excel in areas of investigation and fact, some will be best served by different teaching tools and techniques. Quotas, targets and o.s.f.a. classrooms eventually lead to frustration. Compounded with discipline lack and some parents' arrogance (well, yes, there is, we the public aren't faultless either) this creates an environment which any teacher, unionized or not, would find unacceptable.
Those with no passion for teaching and learning wouldn't care to walk out or feel any sort of frustration at their growing inability to perform the job to the highest standards. Quebec's woes may be the warning sign that many of the real teachers we should guard as a jewel of our education system are about to crack.
Before we suspect malicious intent, let's stop and think. Let us now imagine the frustration of discovering that your students don't care for your knowledge, that you may not uphold your right to be respected as a superior and a teacher, that there's always someone who will expect more and more of you without any right to demand it but their own perceived worth of your skill. I would quake too, and throw everything to the dogs.
One of the oft-cited concerns is the integration of special-needs students in the classrooms. Though everyone has the right to education, let's be honest and admit that learning is not something that can be fit into a one-size-fits-all model. Some may be inclined to interpretation rather than calculation, some will excel in areas of investigation and fact, some will be best served by different teaching tools and techniques. Quotas, targets and o.s.f.a. classrooms eventually lead to frustration. Compounded with discipline lack and some parents' arrogance (well, yes, there is, we the public aren't faultless either) this creates an environment which any teacher, unionized or not, would find unacceptable.
Those with no passion for teaching and learning wouldn't care to walk out or feel any sort of frustration at their growing inability to perform the job to the highest standards. Quebec's woes may be the warning sign that many of the real teachers we should guard as a jewel of our education system are about to crack.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Purpose - who truly lost it
CBC's Don Pittis argues politicians miss out the "human factor" in all their stimulus planning, that the general populace in the States is as good as in a motivation coma. Though I agree with his analysis (you can give man the money but you can't make him spend it right) I disagree with his conclusion that a new "sense of purpose" is needed.
People tend to strive to improve their situation, earn a better livelihood and seek their own maximum happiness. Without digressing into Objectivist arguments, US consumers forgot that a loan is not as earned as a honest income. It was money, to spend at their heart's volition. We all saw the ads for car loans, vacation loans, plasma TV loans, as if the whole economy was supposed, like in a defaulting third-world country, to run on credit and a shopkeeper's "black book". I was brought up in cultures where debt is considered an infamy to be hidden, and I'm sure glad for this moral code I acquired. If I and my family can live within our modest means, why can't everyone else?
Pittis wants to rest from the shock and let society find a new sense of purpose. The United States has been made great by the purpose of generations of Americans: to do something better than anyone around them could. This purpose is still alive in those who hold true to it, and they're the ones who are getting screwed by the stimuli. The true purpose of "Live by your means and seek to increase them" is in no way served by showering the cause of the crisis with freshly-minted cash.
Because if the growth by IOU was a delusion of the masses, patching it up with new fabric is a well thought-out plan by the Administration to close their eyes and keep the broken roller-coaster running without replacing a single rail. It's the government who've lost the sense of purpose, and this is why these purposeless bailouts will not work as they were intended to, if at all.
People tend to strive to improve their situation, earn a better livelihood and seek their own maximum happiness. Without digressing into Objectivist arguments, US consumers forgot that a loan is not as earned as a honest income. It was money, to spend at their heart's volition. We all saw the ads for car loans, vacation loans, plasma TV loans, as if the whole economy was supposed, like in a defaulting third-world country, to run on credit and a shopkeeper's "black book". I was brought up in cultures where debt is considered an infamy to be hidden, and I'm sure glad for this moral code I acquired. If I and my family can live within our modest means, why can't everyone else?
Pittis wants to rest from the shock and let society find a new sense of purpose. The United States has been made great by the purpose of generations of Americans: to do something better than anyone around them could. This purpose is still alive in those who hold true to it, and they're the ones who are getting screwed by the stimuli. The true purpose of "Live by your means and seek to increase them" is in no way served by showering the cause of the crisis with freshly-minted cash.
Because if the growth by IOU was a delusion of the masses, patching it up with new fabric is a well thought-out plan by the Administration to close their eyes and keep the broken roller-coaster running without replacing a single rail. It's the government who've lost the sense of purpose, and this is why these purposeless bailouts will not work as they were intended to, if at all.
Thursday, 19 February 2009
His rights are as good as mine
What may seem like a perversion of justice at first will instead be remembered, I hope, as a landmark case re-enshrining rights too often violated on the impulse of fear. Radical scum cleric Abu Qatada will be compensated for unlawful detention.
His deportation case has already cleared the court system and he will be booted out of the UK, the country that gave him refuge and which he spat on. But his original detention without charge on terrorism suspicion was a stain on Britain's rule of law and right. The current ECHR ruling sets the record straight: charge or be charged!
However great the threats we face, we must not sink to the lowness of the dictatorships where suspicion is a valid arrest motive and silence is an acceptable charge. Often the test of our love of liberty and rights is how prepared we are to extend them to our enemy. If it wants to maintain a credible anti-terrorism record, Britain should beef up its intelligence service, re-route police resources and stop fearing being politically incorrect. After all, sending undercover agents into a mosque or a culture centre to record a hateful sermon would be a much more efficient way to obtain enough proof to prosecute and expel the Qatada-like hatemongers.
Oft invoked as a scarecrow by complainants of dubious repute, the ECHR nevertheless has so far played a key role in bringing to the public's attention the rights violations carried out in EU member states, and other countries accepting its jurisdiction. Unlike our own HRC's, the ECHR does not create rights of its own. It merely looks after the EU Human Rights Charter, a sound document tarnished by local interpretations such as the UK one.
His deportation case has already cleared the court system and he will be booted out of the UK, the country that gave him refuge and which he spat on. But his original detention without charge on terrorism suspicion was a stain on Britain's rule of law and right. The current ECHR ruling sets the record straight: charge or be charged!
However great the threats we face, we must not sink to the lowness of the dictatorships where suspicion is a valid arrest motive and silence is an acceptable charge. Often the test of our love of liberty and rights is how prepared we are to extend them to our enemy. If it wants to maintain a credible anti-terrorism record, Britain should beef up its intelligence service, re-route police resources and stop fearing being politically incorrect. After all, sending undercover agents into a mosque or a culture centre to record a hateful sermon would be a much more efficient way to obtain enough proof to prosecute and expel the Qatada-like hatemongers.
Oft invoked as a scarecrow by complainants of dubious repute, the ECHR nevertheless has so far played a key role in bringing to the public's attention the rights violations carried out in EU member states, and other countries accepting its jurisdiction. Unlike our own HRC's, the ECHR does not create rights of its own. It merely looks after the EU Human Rights Charter, a sound document tarnished by local interpretations such as the UK one.
Sunday, 15 February 2009
EU rights law vs natural evolution of the Monarchy
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. If the Act of Settlement, which bars Catholics and those marrying Catholics from succeeding to the British throne be amended, so be it. But please, keep European human rights laws out of it. It is a narrow-minded approach to a very complex problem. Which means anyone attempting to argue the case from a solely EU law standpoint will botch up a 300-year-old law.
The Sovereign, aside from being a British head of State, i.e. subject to EU law, is also the head of State of a score other countries which, thankfully, are not associated with the EU and, according to the Statute of Westminster, are to be treated as equals. Canada had its Constitution patriated in 1982, thus any change to the way the Monarch in Right of Canada is chosen will have to be validated by Canadian authorities, and others.Laws evolve, and laws dealing with outdated turmoils even more so. It would be stupid, however, to attack a solid law with a jackhammer without considering its repercussions. The stability of the whole Anglican world is at stake. The unity of the Commonwealth is on the scales. Should the amendment be rejected by a national Privy Council, the Commonwealth Realms would have split dynasties. The rift in the Anglican confession could become even larger.
As always, the Law of Unintended Consequences applies. So, drivers of legislative evolution, tread carefully. And do the world a favor: for once, don't invoke an oft-misinterpreted law to justify a change which is meritorious in and of itself.
Monday, 9 February 2009
An Italian tragedy comes to an end
The past few weeks in Italy have seen the circus of mediocrity set up around the tragic state of a 38-year old woman, Eluana Englaro, who has been in a permanent vegetative state for 17 years. As her father and proxy fought in the legal channels for the right to refuse forced feeding and hydration, the political majority exploited the situation.
The definitive sentence of the highest court in Italy, the Cassation, affirmed the right to refuse treatment, the father's right as proxy and Eluana's "implied will" to refuse treatment should such a situation arise. The Government attempted all sorts of tactics: threats (revocation of a clinic's license to practice), harassment (back-to-back police inspections), emergency decree to prohibit all interruptions of feeding (refused by the President as not responding to urgency criteria) and, finally, an ad-hoc law rushed through parliament with the same contents.
The unconstitutionality and sheer stupidity of those moves are evident to everyone. Denying patients' free choice of treatment is as stupid as attempting to overrule a Supreme Court sentence by legislative action. However, as in a final expression of her (proven) refusal to be coerced, Ms. Englaro defied neurologists' prognoses and died an hour ago, a mere four days after her artificial feeding was interrupted.
This is a human tragedy first and foremost, and I for one will not join in my compatriots' childish bickering. It is disappointing to see the supposed leaders of a nation grossly unable to maintain any degree of composture and maturity required to debate and face issues of a human death and great ethical dilemmas such as patient freedom.
This case was grey, but the shameful protagonism display that followed vindicates, in my eyes, the efforts of a father who first sought to bring his daughter back to consciousness and then to take her out of her bodily grave when all hope was lost. He fought a bitter and excruciating court battle, and won it solely on the strength of scientific and personality arguments. His courage is to be admired.
The definitive sentence of the highest court in Italy, the Cassation, affirmed the right to refuse treatment, the father's right as proxy and Eluana's "implied will" to refuse treatment should such a situation arise. The Government attempted all sorts of tactics: threats (revocation of a clinic's license to practice), harassment (back-to-back police inspections), emergency decree to prohibit all interruptions of feeding (refused by the President as not responding to urgency criteria) and, finally, an ad-hoc law rushed through parliament with the same contents.
The unconstitutionality and sheer stupidity of those moves are evident to everyone. Denying patients' free choice of treatment is as stupid as attempting to overrule a Supreme Court sentence by legislative action. However, as in a final expression of her (proven) refusal to be coerced, Ms. Englaro defied neurologists' prognoses and died an hour ago, a mere four days after her artificial feeding was interrupted.
This is a human tragedy first and foremost, and I for one will not join in my compatriots' childish bickering. It is disappointing to see the supposed leaders of a nation grossly unable to maintain any degree of composture and maturity required to debate and face issues of a human death and great ethical dilemmas such as patient freedom.
This case was grey, but the shameful protagonism display that followed vindicates, in my eyes, the efforts of a father who first sought to bring his daughter back to consciousness and then to take her out of her bodily grave when all hope was lost. He fought a bitter and excruciating court battle, and won it solely on the strength of scientific and personality arguments. His courage is to be admired.
Monday, 2 February 2009
Local jobs for local people - with a strike to boot
As well as opportunities, economic crises tend to bring out the worst in a nation too. Look no further than the UK, whose public opinion has always been permeated with suspicion toward foreign workers (sorry Brits). A wave of solidarity strikes is sweeping the nation as workers at the Total Lindsey refinery cross their arms to protest a sub-contractor who uses its own (Italian) workforce.
Demanding that local workforce be sourced for local jobs is everyone's sacrosanct right, and I am not one to argue against this principle. However, the sub-contractor uses its workforce because it's trained to specification and has been known to the employer for longer. Furthermore, concerns about cheap labor are moot as UK law would prohibit paying anyone below minimum wage.
The simple truth is that British workers, and the contractors employing them, have priced themselves out of the contract. The Italian firm has a proven track record of excellence and offered the best price. Why SHOULDN'T Total choose their services?
Why should a multinational company put British workers first (as they demand) when an Italian company can do the same job cheaper and better, all within the confines of British law? The workers' frustration is legitimate, but there's nothing illegal in what Total has done. Foreign workers have helped Britain become the vibrant economy it was. Skilled immigration has filled the voids left by a crumbling education system.
And today, when trouble bites, all British workers can do is demand those who helped the country to be kicked out, discriminated, gratuitously humiliated without even saying "thanks" or "sorry". Ignorant protectionism and blind nationalism are ugly beasts. A sad state of affairs indeed.
Demanding that local workforce be sourced for local jobs is everyone's sacrosanct right, and I am not one to argue against this principle. However, the sub-contractor uses its workforce because it's trained to specification and has been known to the employer for longer. Furthermore, concerns about cheap labor are moot as UK law would prohibit paying anyone below minimum wage.
The simple truth is that British workers, and the contractors employing them, have priced themselves out of the contract. The Italian firm has a proven track record of excellence and offered the best price. Why SHOULDN'T Total choose their services?
Why should a multinational company put British workers first (as they demand) when an Italian company can do the same job cheaper and better, all within the confines of British law? The workers' frustration is legitimate, but there's nothing illegal in what Total has done. Foreign workers have helped Britain become the vibrant economy it was. Skilled immigration has filled the voids left by a crumbling education system.
And today, when trouble bites, all British workers can do is demand those who helped the country to be kicked out, discriminated, gratuitously humiliated without even saying "thanks" or "sorry". Ignorant protectionism and blind nationalism are ugly beasts. A sad state of affairs indeed.
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Let's grit our teeth and stay tuned
The 2009 Canadian budget probably makes many of us cringe and cry foul. I am no economist, but red ink is red for a reason, and deficits are a Tory's worst nightmare. Stephen Taylor, however, puts the issue into perspective far better than I ever could.
At gunpoint one can choose a honorable death while making a brave last stance or try to save one's own neck. Having missed a great majority opportunity in October, the Tories would have probably been destroyed at the polls had they delivered a designed-to-irritate budget. A paradigm shift occurred in the Cabinet (at long last, in my opinion), abandoning childish poking at the opposition and embracing a more mature form of legislative action.
Looking through some provisions of the Budget I noted, naively maybe, a definite conservative streak. The support for the forestry sector, for instance, is heavily focused on innovation rather than just temporary support. FPInnovations is no union-dominated morass seeking a bailout. Homeowner incentives are geared towards consumption (spend and thou shalt receive).
I have a qualm regarding social housing investment. Surely once completed it will allow the low income earners and pensioners to reduce their rent costs. However it may also create ghettos, with the risks associated with social housing estates in the long run for the community. I would have preferred support for people to maintain their current status as tenants, with allowances for moving to less expensive properties. However removing tenants from the rent market may spell disaster for estate companies and buy-to-rent landlords, who will find themselves with no rent income and a depreciated house. Social housing estate-induced community deterioration could be avoided with eventual ownership prospects, so occupants will be encouraged to maintain a neat, safe and attractive environment. If you're going to own it, you'll want it kept nicely.
Ultimately, it is a gritted-teeth Budget. We have not succumbed to the hand-out mentality of the Liberals and expect more from the money we pour into the economy than mere continuation of the status-quo. We are sending out a message that reads "if you wanted to invest or buy, the time is now". Admittedly, we couldn't do more.
This is a Budget which has Canada's present and future at heart, and a good campaign Budget too. Should the Liberals decide to vote it down they will have to bear the ire of voters who would have taken advantage of the stimulus provisions. And there's definitely more of those than coalition fans. One never knows, Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper may yet turn out to have delivered a political masterpiece and a great economic experiment.
At gunpoint one can choose a honorable death while making a brave last stance or try to save one's own neck. Having missed a great majority opportunity in October, the Tories would have probably been destroyed at the polls had they delivered a designed-to-irritate budget. A paradigm shift occurred in the Cabinet (at long last, in my opinion), abandoning childish poking at the opposition and embracing a more mature form of legislative action.
Looking through some provisions of the Budget I noted, naively maybe, a definite conservative streak. The support for the forestry sector, for instance, is heavily focused on innovation rather than just temporary support. FPInnovations is no union-dominated morass seeking a bailout. Homeowner incentives are geared towards consumption (spend and thou shalt receive).
I have a qualm regarding social housing investment. Surely once completed it will allow the low income earners and pensioners to reduce their rent costs. However it may also create ghettos, with the risks associated with social housing estates in the long run for the community. I would have preferred support for people to maintain their current status as tenants, with allowances for moving to less expensive properties. However removing tenants from the rent market may spell disaster for estate companies and buy-to-rent landlords, who will find themselves with no rent income and a depreciated house. Social housing estate-induced community deterioration could be avoided with eventual ownership prospects, so occupants will be encouraged to maintain a neat, safe and attractive environment. If you're going to own it, you'll want it kept nicely.
Ultimately, it is a gritted-teeth Budget. We have not succumbed to the hand-out mentality of the Liberals and expect more from the money we pour into the economy than mere continuation of the status-quo. We are sending out a message that reads "if you wanted to invest or buy, the time is now". Admittedly, we couldn't do more.
This is a Budget which has Canada's present and future at heart, and a good campaign Budget too. Should the Liberals decide to vote it down they will have to bear the ire of voters who would have taken advantage of the stimulus provisions. And there's definitely more of those than coalition fans. One never knows, Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper may yet turn out to have delivered a political masterpiece and a great economic experiment.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Luca's one step closer to being a permanent resident
The recent penury of activity is over. While some have bar exams, birthdays and throne speeches today, I had a Quebec Selection interview this morning. After a pleasant hour I emerged with a CSQ, which means I can apply for Permanent Residence.
A very pleasant interviewer, a very relaxed setting, a very happy Luca at the end of it.
A very pleasant interviewer, a very relaxed setting, a very happy Luca at the end of it.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
A little digression on Putinland
Canadian cincinnatus rightly points out how unwitting pawns can buy into Kremlin propaganda and be duped into believing that Russia is the greatest world superpower. However, Cincinnatus falls into the opposite trap: buying into uninformed Western media reporting.
Cincinnatus contends that the Moscow apartment bombings that spurred the latest Chechen war were orchestrated by the Putin government. I don't believe they were. Considering how idiotic the russian administration is, such a ploy would have come to light and would have been botched up no doubt. Russian apartment buildings are a joke to get into, and explosives are easy to find if you know where to look. My odds that it was the government are at least 5:1.
Moreover, Cincinnatus rightly remarks that Putin won re-election twice in at times very murky circumstances. I am no fan of Mr P's, but I do see a general discontent among the population toward the alternative parties of power and the alternative candidates. Many of them lack credibility (kas'yanov, the oligarch's buddy?). Thus Putin is often the sole choice people have, lest their country be entrusted to someone without a power base (who will therefore seek it with the oligarchs, we've seen how this worked in the 90's) or someone completely deranged. Odds of Putin cheating are 3:1 in my books.
Next, Cincinnatus contends that Russia invaded Georgia on purpose and had the operation planned. The latter is true. The former is bullshit. The pot has been boiling for years and the Russians definitely had a plan to kick Georgian butt. Since the southern President has a tendency to bark at his neighbor while hiding beyond a fictitious veil of Western solidarity, it is no surprise that the offended party has a reserve plan to bust him. Moreover, Russians have a very powerful intelligence service. They knew what Georgia was doing, and therefore were ready to respond. Easy.
The whole area of the former Soviet Union has to be construed as a governmental IQ black hole. Assume that each and every government in the region is stupid. What would a stupid government do? Many crises explained, not least the latest gas standoff which was used as a trading horse between the warring orange factions.
Cincinnatus further states that Putin ordered the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. I doubt it. Firstly, the guy had no real sensitive secret to hold. At most he was a good conspiracy theorist. Secondly, he kept sketchy company, including convicted and wanted terrorist Ahmed Zakayev, who is KNOWN to have organised deadly attacks. Thirdly, if Putin and the FSB wanted to assassinate Litvinenko, a gun shot in a dark alley would have been the chosen method. Any chemical is easy to come about in Russia provided you look hard enough. I wouldn't have risked such negative publicity for such a pawn. Poisoning Berezovsky, on the other hand, would have been a clear FSB job mandated from high above.
Don't get me wrong. I too believe Putin is a thug, that he is incompetent with the economy and very murky in his dealings. However I refuse to believe that someone would risk so much for so little, whether the so little is humiliating Georgia or poisoning Litvinenko. But again, stupid is as stupid does. One never knows.
Cincinnatus contends that the Moscow apartment bombings that spurred the latest Chechen war were orchestrated by the Putin government. I don't believe they were. Considering how idiotic the russian administration is, such a ploy would have come to light and would have been botched up no doubt. Russian apartment buildings are a joke to get into, and explosives are easy to find if you know where to look. My odds that it was the government are at least 5:1.
Moreover, Cincinnatus rightly remarks that Putin won re-election twice in at times very murky circumstances. I am no fan of Mr P's, but I do see a general discontent among the population toward the alternative parties of power and the alternative candidates. Many of them lack credibility (kas'yanov, the oligarch's buddy?). Thus Putin is often the sole choice people have, lest their country be entrusted to someone without a power base (who will therefore seek it with the oligarchs, we've seen how this worked in the 90's) or someone completely deranged. Odds of Putin cheating are 3:1 in my books.
Next, Cincinnatus contends that Russia invaded Georgia on purpose and had the operation planned. The latter is true. The former is bullshit. The pot has been boiling for years and the Russians definitely had a plan to kick Georgian butt. Since the southern President has a tendency to bark at his neighbor while hiding beyond a fictitious veil of Western solidarity, it is no surprise that the offended party has a reserve plan to bust him. Moreover, Russians have a very powerful intelligence service. They knew what Georgia was doing, and therefore were ready to respond. Easy.
The whole area of the former Soviet Union has to be construed as a governmental IQ black hole. Assume that each and every government in the region is stupid. What would a stupid government do? Many crises explained, not least the latest gas standoff which was used as a trading horse between the warring orange factions.
Cincinnatus further states that Putin ordered the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. I doubt it. Firstly, the guy had no real sensitive secret to hold. At most he was a good conspiracy theorist. Secondly, he kept sketchy company, including convicted and wanted terrorist Ahmed Zakayev, who is KNOWN to have organised deadly attacks. Thirdly, if Putin and the FSB wanted to assassinate Litvinenko, a gun shot in a dark alley would have been the chosen method. Any chemical is easy to come about in Russia provided you look hard enough. I wouldn't have risked such negative publicity for such a pawn. Poisoning Berezovsky, on the other hand, would have been a clear FSB job mandated from high above.
Don't get me wrong. I too believe Putin is a thug, that he is incompetent with the economy and very murky in his dealings. However I refuse to believe that someone would risk so much for so little, whether the so little is humiliating Georgia or poisoning Litvinenko. But again, stupid is as stupid does. One never knows.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Thank God for research - Duh!
Privatization kills, or so say UK academics who published an article in the Lancet. Examining the death rate in countries undergoing sweeping economic reform, they noticed that periods of privatization apparently coincided with an increase in the death rate among the population.
Now, when jobs that provide pay and healthcare vanish it is all too obvious that unemployment will rise, the quality of healthcare will deteriorate and th morbidity may increase. With less tax income, doctors in a public health system will be paid less and resort to taking bribes for faster treatment, or leave the profession altogether. Unemployed people may take to the bottle or illegal means of procurement. Diets veer toward the unhealthy side (as the paper rightly points out).
However it is an unsanctioned reasoning leap to suggest that economic reform leads to death. It is contrary to any academic standard, and flies in the face of the old axiom that correlation does not imply causation.
Questions for the scientists:
1) Should countries therefore not undertake economic reforms and go under?
2) Should economic development (e.g. building factories) be shunned in favour of less-risky forms of economy such as call-centres and basic agriculture?
3) How large was the spike in mortality, if any, in Britain during the Thatcher years? I bet my testicles it was not large, if there was any at all.
Bad privatization causes havoc. Bad science kills. Bad policy can cause huge damages. The moral of the story is that when you screw things up the population loses out. We certainly didn't need a team of academics telling us the bleeding obvious and getting the wrong end of the stick in the process.
DUH!
Now, when jobs that provide pay and healthcare vanish it is all too obvious that unemployment will rise, the quality of healthcare will deteriorate and th morbidity may increase. With less tax income, doctors in a public health system will be paid less and resort to taking bribes for faster treatment, or leave the profession altogether. Unemployed people may take to the bottle or illegal means of procurement. Diets veer toward the unhealthy side (as the paper rightly points out).
However it is an unsanctioned reasoning leap to suggest that economic reform leads to death. It is contrary to any academic standard, and flies in the face of the old axiom that correlation does not imply causation.
Questions for the scientists:
1) Should countries therefore not undertake economic reforms and go under?
2) Should economic development (e.g. building factories) be shunned in favour of less-risky forms of economy such as call-centres and basic agriculture?
3) How large was the spike in mortality, if any, in Britain during the Thatcher years? I bet my testicles it was not large, if there was any at all.
Bad privatization causes havoc. Bad science kills. Bad policy can cause huge damages. The moral of the story is that when you screw things up the population loses out. We certainly didn't need a team of academics telling us the bleeding obvious and getting the wrong end of the stick in the process.
DUH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)