Nip the institutional game in the bud

I like when common sense triumphs in a madhouse such as the House of Commons. Milliken's ruling on the Afghan detainee documents issue is a compromise and, IMHO, a good ass-kicking for the Conservative government. Because "national security" is a catchphrase I'm sick and tired of hearing. Relating to the mission in Afghanistan it is completely out of place. Sensitive strategy documents jeopardize the security of our troops, rather than Canada itself.

It is patently obvious to anyone gifted with neurons that hardly any information can be classified forever, but that classifying certain documents for the duration of a military mission is more than ordinary. Therefore, Harper should table several proposals before Parliament and have the Opposition approve at least one. 

But a greater question emerges. If the security of troops, mission and country cannot be put in jeopardy by revealing the documents' contents, how on Earth are the Liberals going to argue the Government is guilty of breaching international law? They would have to beg Parliament to take them on their word, destroying thus the foundation on which justice is built.

At the end of the Afghan mission most of the documents should be made public, and those suspected of "war crimes" judged.

The Liberals are therefore waiting to reject all Government proposals and hope for Milliken to find the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament. We must not give them that opportunity.

Give Ignatieff, Duceppe and Layton five days worth of meetings. Following that, table a series of proposals on how to arrange document access while waiting for the mission to finish, and make the approval of at least one a matter of confidence.

We shall see then how much the opposition is willing to play games with the institution of the Speaker. Before the two weeks are up we will either have a sworn committee or a dissolved Parliament. 

But for the love of God do not call the election yourself, Prime Minister. For once, just for once, make an eventual negative will of Parliament work in your favour.

The case for Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg is almost as popular as Chrchill, and I like his moment of fame. I cringe while writing these words. If I weren't a committed Tory I'd very much juggle the idea of lending Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats my vote. I'm not a serial kool-aid drinker, nor am I barking bonkers.

The Lib Dems want to join the Euro. None of the main parties will cooperate on scrapping the pound sterling, however it's about time the UK allowed transacting and accounting in the European denomination. Britain's debt aside, joining a weaker currency would give the country a nudge toward resuming its manufacturing. Ballooned by a weaker Euro, British debt would eventually make a default on several Treasury bonds a viable alternative. With its credit rating shot to hell, the UK government would have no money to finance its bureaucracy and be forced to cut mercilessly, whoever happens to be in power. Joining the Euro would be an unmitigated disaster leading to several potentially beneficial outcomes. 

Ridding yourself of tooth pain via an extraction without anesthesia.

The Liberal Democrats would scrap income tax for those earning less than 10.000 pounds a year. With exemptions already topping 5.000 quid, removing this peanut wage bracket from the tax system will hurt, but not significantly.

Tackling world hunger by donating a can of baked beans.

The Liberal Democrats would give long-time resident illegal immigrants an amnesty. By this time they are likely to be able to add up, write and speak English better than a school leaver if current exam standards are any benchmark. International law prohibits their return to some of heir home countries, while returning them to the country of first safe transit would annoy plenty of friendly nations. We might as well allow them to work without having to be paid cash-in-hand.

Disposing of a bottle of crap wine by making sangria. Hey, it's booze.

Lib Dem defence plans include scrapping Trident. Who in their right mind would want an island full of - according to some Brits themselves - knife-brandishing chavs, lazy asses, benefit scroungers and a basket case for a Treasury? Get real. We defeated Argentina without needing nukes, the Russian elite sends its brightest offspring to Cambridge and in Beijing teachers make an effort to teach the Queen's English. Be nice to the Americans, pay the French to keep up their subs, British-ize the russkies, send bowler hats to Hu Jintao and just enjoy the ride.

Realizing your quest for a Commodore software update is a little stupid, as it's a collector's item by now.

Nick Clegg's popularity might not last or it could result in a VERY hung parliament. Either way, his entry into the race is nothing but a much needed wake-up call. His party is the only one offering something radical enough to be remembered after the end of soundbite time. I really disagree with the Lib Dem stance of soaking the rich and businesses, yet the latest moods in Britain seem to want just that.

Read around the comment sections in most online newspapers and you'll be treated to nonsensical tirades against greedy businessmen and the rich, who deserve nothing but a 90% tax rate and tons of regulation.

If that's the country that goes to the polls, they fully deserve the Liberal Democrats holding the reins of power. If the populace is so incapable of seeing what's best for the country, it's only beneficial for Brussels to take over. 

Clegg's popularity isn't Britain's Obama moment. It's the indictment of an entire model of governance and communication. It's the agony moan of a Britain beginning a fall into a precipice and too hopeless to attempt clutching at the cliff top. They'd rather supinely fall, hope to survive and start from what is essentially a new blank slate. 

Maybe my cynicism is unjustified. I say bring it on, this Brave New Britain.

Just vote Tory. Please!

How to say NO to a union

A few days ago two very polite, smart and argumentative grad students wanted to unionize me through a card-check. As research associates and the like do not have union representation they are, allegedly, well underpaid compared to other universities. Forming a collective bargaining unit is, therefore, obviously in our interests.

Well, not really.

If grad students doing research go on strike our next semestral review will simply conclude we haven't made any progress. We'd be expelled from McGill in no time following that.

When a union is formed, everyone will have to join upon being admitted as a grad researcher. I will not sign off someone else's freedom to choose.

Whether you are a member or resign from the union, you still have to pay the dues. Apparently because even without voting in a union ballot, you still enjoy the union's services (the eventual pay raise). I will not steal my colleagues' future earnings.

Card-check is a vile system that presents employers with a fait accompli and leaves ordinary workers vulnerable to abuse, bullying and harm by not-so-scrupulous union thugs. The sooner it is ruled illegal the world over the better. I, for one, will not participate in a system designed with good intentions and used to oppress and bully the innocent.

Gains from union action are illusory. TA's striked and got a pay raise. The following semester a lot of $2000 TA-ships were split into two separate $1000 ones. Over the following two semesters I still believe AGSEM cost me $2000. I never forgive money debts I did not incur voluntarily.

Your card is more likely to be signed in other seas. I am about to be out. Unlike some Liberal leaders, I do not leave my colleagues farewell poison pills. Thanks for asking.

Why is this debate always so superficial?

If Kelly McParland wants to "put abortionists in a box" with his National Post article, he hardly achieves his aims. He surely raises an important issue in this thorny debate (gender-based abortion), but I for one agree with BC's doctors refusing to reveal the gender of the foetus before the 3-month indicative dealine.

The argument that one should either be 100% for or 100% against abortion is rubbish, and McParland insults the NP readers' intelligence by postulating as much. 

In order to support "a woman's right to choose," you have to believe that a fetus is not human in the moral sense.

No, Kelly: just not sentient, viable or conscious. Take your pick and prove me wrong.

Gender-based pregnancy termination and seeking thereof is a cultural aberration confined, thankfully, to a restricted portion of Canada's population. This is no excuse to not address it as a potential calamity. Excessive gender imbalances bring about social unrest, a breakdown of families and the eventual need for government intervention. The Economist published recently an article about how incarcerating young black men in the US is ruining black women's family life and relationship prospects.

There's no need for an imbalance per se. In urban Russia one frequently meets young men decrying materialism and capitalism and young women whose self-esteem is rocketing downwards. The male gender has been relegated by two generations raised predominantly by single mothers (alcoholic husband) or widows (27 million dead in WW2 alone). As age progresses males are decimated by crime and health problems. Result: young (18-year-olds) rural women seek their fortune in Moscow or St Petersburg, leaving older 25-year-olds in the doldrums. Male relegation results in a car, a well-paying job and a nice flat being relationship sine qua non's.

Is this desirable? Do we want to even risk it?

I am an unashamed abortionist. I believe in elective abortion as long as, obviously, it does not harm the long-term prospects of society. A wilful creation of a gender imbalance is undesirable for the long-term health of the host society. Which is exactly why I favour not revealing a baby's gender until a legislative deadline is passed.

Electing for a termination due to a genetic condition or because the pregnancy is genuinely unwanted should not be tampered with. It's the abuse of a right we should tackle.

I don't get it why the most radical conservatives are against abortion. If it's just the liberals and feminists who abort their kids, surely in a few generations there wouldn't be any left. If the National Post can publish bullshit arguments, I am surely free to do the same.

How to not win an election.

I watched the first UK Leaders' Debate on youtube (thanks for not streaming outside the UK, ITV) and I am not surprised Nick Clegg was the surprise audience's favorite.

Gordon Brown is clearly being coached by Karl Rove's British twin, Alistair Campbell. He was aggressive, disrespectful, snide and cocky. So unlike him that you'd be excused for thinking it was actually a robot in the studio resembling the PM.

Cameron, on the other hand, spoke well when making statements but completely lost the plot when rebutting Brown's points. Brown kept chasing him with the "how cn you guarantee funding for good thing X" mantra. Instead of putting the PM in his rightful place, Cameron waffled.

"Of course we can guarantee funding for the Police and the NHS. Your government has thrown money at every problem and wasted it. When we cut the useless management, pen-pushers, paperwork, hot air and QUANGOs we will have enough money to fulfil our promises and then some."

Such poetry was nowhere to be heard, and Clegg had a field day ravishing the main parties and watching them suck up to him, the essential partner in a hung parliament. 

I hoped to see some passion from Cameron and I hardly saw any. He seemed utterly offended by Brown's interruptions and insistence, as if he wasn't used to defending his own points. I know this not to be true. So the Notting Hill yes-men surrounding him must have had a very negative influence.

If I were running for anything, I'd probably surround myself with smart friends I disagree most with. Not because I am crazy, but because I'd know the combined intelligence of my entourage would outnumber the opposition's by a mile.

Cameron didn't hold Brown to account and gave Clegg the PR limelight he was hoping for. Way to go, Tories.

Business as usual in the Stans

Riots, corruption and noise in Central Asia are almost a daily occurrence. Much noise and 100 dead bodies later, Kyrgyzstan is calmer and split. The President has fled south and the opposition mob rules in the capital. The Bakiev experiment, begun by the Tulip revolution with promises of democracy, fairness, a chicken in every pot and a Hummer in every garage has failed.

If there were ever a moral to a tragic story like Kyrgyzstan's, or Thailand's for that matter, is that democracy cannot come by will alone or at the wave of a magic wand. 

Before any sort of democratic government can be installed, the ruling class must acknowledge it serves the people, not the other way round. Old habits die hard. In most of Asia and Africa, they might not die for another century or so.

I place my bet on the generations that grew up entirely in the information era (mid-90's onwards). As they become the dominant demographic, there's hope for better governance. In the meantime, let's give the tin-pot pretend democrat manipulators the opprobrium-filled sendoff they so deserve.