TV campaigning is a muddy business

I sometimes wonder why I can't muster the passion and dedication to subscribe to Macleans, and this recent commentary by Feschuk kind of reminds me. 

You, like me, may not like the Tory attack ads. I have said long ago that attacking Ignatieff because he loved the country he lived in was a cheap shot. A few weeks back I stumbled upon a comment in the Globe and Mail that essentially turned the tables on the PM, and imagined what a Liberal attack ad of the same format would contain. No surprise, it's the bogeymen every opponent lets loose whenever an election is looming, and which have all been thrown out of Party policy ages ago.

The Globe's assumption is false on one elementary count: while the PM and the Conservative Party have long recanted their unpalatable views, Ignatieff has kept the door open to a Coalition even after this election and has done nothing to disprove the attack's allegations. He is too arrogant to admit he was wrong, and it will be his undoing.

In the meantime, critics of Tory marketing tactics should think twice before slinging around accusations of ill-will. No-one in the Party is as cynical as to assume supporters will believe a "memo" fundraising letter is an actual memo. Marketing is marketing: if a certain tactic works you don't question why it does, you just use it.

Knowing what makes people tick is different from assuming they're stupid. That's the Liberals' domain.

Majority rhetoric gaining traction

In the past few weeks, if not days, talk of a Tory majority started to gain traction in the media. Not long ago Vincent Marissal, of La Presse, ran a not-exceptionally-positive article about the current Government and PM while treating the prospect of a majority like a real possibility.

The same day, he invited comments on his blog regarding his interview with Agop Evereklian, our exceptional candidate in Pierrefonds-Dollard, who remarked Canadians and Quebecers should trust Harper with a majority.

When the Globe and Mail shocks you by saying it's high time for a strong Tory majority, you know something's abrew.

I don't want to jinx our chances, yet I must admit that the rhetoric is changing significantly. As people realise "nasty tory" scare stories are baloney - and just how incapable the opposition is - this time we're in for a good one.

Whenever I am faced by the usual drivel of "hidden agendas" and similar idiocy, I cant help reminding that muppet that it is common sense, Cnada's interest and Tory MPs from Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic that will ensure a moderate government. When times are tough, you can't afford liberal airheads or "I like minority governments" indecision. Canadians should grow up, grow a pair and vote Tory next time so Canada can have a clear course for the next four years. God knows how much in these times we need one!

Statesman vs Don Quixote: which Harper would you pick?

Politics is the art of the possible, as Bismarck put it. We should therefore stop accusing each other of selling out, particularly regarding a potential deal with the NDP on the Budget. Reading the negative reactions to such a possibility, I get the impression many voters would rather our parties engage in Quixotic charges at windmills rather than work as our representatives.

This Conservative Government has three main duties: govern, be Conservative and survive. In a minority Parliament there's only so much envelope pushing we can do before said envelope bursts. I, for one, am glad principled and realistic politicians such as Harper and Layton have realised it. 

Gilles Duceppe, being my MP, has conversely let me down. Rather than figure out two billion was a lot to ask for, he more than doubled the stakes. In the end, my province's interests will be served not by those who claim to represent it best, but by those who do not indulge in delusions.

In today's Commons, we can only be as Conservative as the most realistic opposition will let us. By not clamouring for an election, the Prime Minister chooses statesmanship over mere politics. As Canadians of all political colours, we should be thankful for such a leader, and trust him with a majority next time he seeks our confidence.

Having the cake and eating it too

How on earth can you negotiate a common security perimeter and at the same time slap an inspection fee on Canadian visitors? It makes no sense. The latest White House proposal for the next US budget, among other things, includes the aforementioned idiocy.

This kind of move is either stupid, or an acknowledgment that the common perimeter negotiations have failed. If this is what the Liberals wanted, congrats. Shafting Canadians in the name of petty politics is quite the policy for a decent government!

I read some Marx

...and I liked it.

h/t my good friend and fellow Tory Laura-Rose Saunders. She'll be giving more.

What if the Egyptians really succeed?

The Egypt protests have achieved a statement by Hosni Mubarak that he won't seek re-election. More importantly, they've secured a guarantee from the Army that they won't shoot. Between the two, it's the latter that counts.

In a country where 90% of the territory is a designated military zone some way or the other, and a permanent state of emergency has reigned for most of the past years the insubordination (of sorts) of the armed forces is a clear sign the current ruler has lost the rudder.

Well, good for Egypt for getting rid of a despot. As the record of "hope and change" is shaky in the beacon of democracy that is the US, the prospect for Egypt is hardly rosy.

Whichever "democratic" government comes to power, it will have three main agenda items: curtailing Army and Police powers, maintaining American military aid and keeping a peaceful relationship with Israel.

Whichever they do, they'll be damned by a very key stakeholder. The US should be wary of bankrolling a Brotherhood-backed government; being nice to Israel will upset the Brotherhood or - if done with Brotherhood support - significantly dent Egypt's appeal as a regional power broker; lastly, the moment special forces see their free-for-all come to an end, their "support" for the uprising will fade as quickly as it materialised.

I honestly hope Egypt makes it through. Looking at the past few "revolutions", I am disheartened. Kosovo is run by crooks. Georgia has a megalomaniac dictator for leader. Kyrgyzstan needed a revolutionary "follow-up" that nearly ended in civil war. Ukrainians decided the crook they wanted out was an improvement over the rabble they put in his place. Tunisia is still convulsing and God knows what's in store in Algeria and Yemen. A power vacuum in Egypt is the last thing we need.

So long Hosni. I hope you won't have cause to quote to your opponents former Russian PM Viktor Chernomyrdin. His words - "We wanted to do what's best, and it ended up as usual" - would be a tragedy if applied to the Egypt, and the world of today.

Not a good start for Ground Zero mosque

Their new imam is a prolific dontopedologist: he opens his mouth and his foot's in it pronto. When he speaks academically he is confusing, and when he speaks straightforwardly he's a bigot.

(And God, I hate calling it the GZ mosque, but hey - rhetoric be rhetoric and traffic be traffic!)

Quite a few media reports misquoted him on apostasy, claiming he said apostates should be jailed. Abdallah Adhami said no such thing. His crime is omission. Answering a question (and writing an article), he outlined historical attitudes to apostasy, leaving a gaping chasm as to how we should go about it today. His clear skepticism about protests at any whiff of challenge to the Muslim faith is smudged, smeared and scrambled by an abyssal communication - and political - ineptitude.

Today, he tasted patent leather for lunch by proffering his prejudice on the origin of homosexual drive. Gay people come from good, bad, Christian, Muslim, liberal, conservative, rich and poor families alike - a person of Adhami's scholarship should grasp as much. 

Fully knowing how hot a seat he parked his ass on, he seems incapable of judging what to say, and if, when and how. Even I know that quotes can be taken out of context and that media will dumb down everything. They assume their audience to be as dense as pudding and to hold the same in lieu of brains.

The new imam of the Ground Zero mosque is undoubtedly a scholar and, in a few matters, a moderate. He also possesses the misfortunes of political clumsiness, prejudice and a bad case of verbal shlits. 

This catastrophe in the making calls for a good PR man to train the guy in elementary succinction, political tact and good old-fashioned "silence is golden".

Thanks for nothing, CRTC!

As an avid user of these so-called "interwebs", I behave as any normal consumer would - wanting more for less. When looking for a good broadband plan, I chose my provider - Teksavvy - because they offered as close to unlimited use as one could possibly get, at a knock-down price.

Despite it being very convenient for me, I couldn't help but feel the awkwardness of the situation. Bell customers, poor souls, slapped with an unforgiving cap and overcharged for the fun of it; meanwhile I could surf carefree,  with no cap through a provider who used Bell's network. This has, naturally, come to a crashing end with the recent CRTC ruling that gave Bell the right to charge its network users, including wholesale clients, based on usage rather than for mere bandwidth blocks.

Property be property, if you own the network you should have the right to charge for its use as you see fit. Yet forcing your competitors to charge the same as you do is lame policy. A lameness comparable to that of the standard excuse for such charges: "preserving capacity".

This argument reminds me of Senator Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" quote. Bell and Rogers' charges per gigabyte, both within and over caps, are stellar enough to send the marginal utility of every extra GB of  capacity through the roof. There's no excuse for not beefing up networks when there's demand. 

If large amounts of non-profitable data is the problem, the CRTC could - and should - have forced Bell to un-bundle its network capacity. A client's running of a business site, torrenting, video streaming, peer-to-peer exchange, browsing, internet radio or VoIP are significantly different classes of usage. Their intrinsic value to each and every consumer are vastly different.

Right now, Bell is forcing everyone to charge $X for "groceries", rather than $A for "apples", $B for "oranges" and $C for "meat". 

The CRTC could have done Canadians a service by forcing bandwidth providers to give consumers choice over what they want from their internet connection. Bell and Rogers could have cashed in on the new offerings, such as Netflix, by offering privileged or unlimited access by consumers to Netflix servers for streaming, maybe for a small extra fee. How hard can it be to set up a privileged VPN? 

"Dear user, do you like movies? For $5 a month, you can connect to NetFlix through our dedicated VPN network. Stream unlimited movies without worrying about your usage cap. Yours, Bell". 

So long to seeing that level of smartness.

After all, with usage is limited to 25 GB you'd gladly pay extra per movie to have that usage taken off your bill. If, as a movie fanatic, you couldn't care less about torrents and P2P, you would very well forfeit your right to use that kind of protocol for the privilege of unlimited streaming, or internet radio, or VoIP. 

Net neutrality tends to hurt suppliers, while blind proprietorship hurts consumers. When will someone get a bloody grip and use their brains for thinking?

The ruling by the CRTC is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. You get a pulped walnut, a dent in your table and remain hungry.

Catch-22s in health care are unworthy of Canada.

A bleeding heart I am not, but this one takes the biscuit! Asking the penniless to pay up-front because the government is too slow in reimbursing you is the worst PR for your business and, in the end, a very expensive choice for the country.

Not all refugees spend $50k to be shipped to the country, and a big majority of them - I'd bet - are really genuine seekers of freedom from fear. We can debate the merits and demerits of affording those whose status is uncertain the privilege of a blank cheque. The proposal from the Quebec pharmacists' association binds those affected in a Catch-22 situation unworthy of a civilised country.

Currently, pharmacists give out drugs to refugee claimants and other penniless newcomer categories, then file for reimbursement with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The proposed policy shift would transfer the reimbursement onus on the consumer. 

If you're penniless, you will be able to afford squat. Until you get a 2 or 3-numbered SIN, forget about decent credit cards that would allow some form of deferral. When there's rent, bills and expenses to pay, one can hardly cough up for the necessary meds for a chronic condition, or an acute one for that matter.

How can this be beneficial for the country at large? Without medications, deteriorating conditions will clog up hospitals, emergency rooms and clinics. Instead of subsidising a smaller medication purchase, we'd end up paying out of our pocket for extra hospital, doctor, nurse and equipment time. You don't need an accountancy degree to figure out what's least expensive.

It's the usual crap. Governmental schemes are inefficient, so it's taken out on those who can't answer back. Rather than give bureaucrats and pen-men a nudge, the pharmacists take the easy way out. More shockingly for me, the most "agreed" comments on the CBC web site - usually reserved for those hearts bleeding most copiously - were attacking the very principle of the subsidy scheme. I've never seen such tightness regarding taxpayer money. Maybe the cause lies in many Canadians lacking comprehensive coverage too, ergo their health care nerve is very raw.

The Quebec Pharmacists' Association's concerns are legitimate: a private business has to have timely payments. It is however unfair to dump the consequences of public inefficiencies onto those who, according to treaties by the same critical and tight bleeding hearts to death defended, we have taken upon ourselves to protect and shelter.

The F-35 isn't just a fighter jet.

Countries buy weapons to kick ass and avoid getting one's own kicked by others. In this context, Canada's CF-18 Hornets are excellent defence tools, except for their age and the fact they're no longer in production. (Commenter pointed out this last assertion is inaccurate. Apologies)

I am no defence expert: my aviation knowledge stretches barely beyond the ideal economy class seats on a few Airbus or Boeing models. Reading around, I could determine that we could replace the CF-18s with Boeing's F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets right away. At least, those can carry a similar load to the CF-18, to approximately the same distance in combat.

Let's pause for a second. Our neighbours are the US, Denmark, France and Russia, and the chances of a military confrontation with all but one are nil. The F-35 will, one assumes, be used up north to intercept pesky Russian Sukhoi Su-35s or PAKs that stray a tad too much into Canadian airspace.

With the current hot seller, the Su-35, we are fairly safe as it can't be stealthy enough. Sure, it can carry 12 "Adder" missiles and some more, but that load would make it conspicuous enough on radars to render it useless.

The new Sukhoi PAK, instead, will be able to carry eight vicious "Adders" in its internal bays alone. By comparison, the most optimistic designs for the F-35 allow for only six comparably effective rockets to be carried without trading away stealth. Chances are it's going to have only four.

We are therefore outgunned - but not outmanoeuvred - in air-to-air combat and too far from Russian mainland for a stealth mission anyway. The F-35s are a formidable defensive machine, and their purchase should be accompanied soon by investment into Arctic air bases to increase the F-35's coverage. Consistent with a policy of reclaiming the Arctic, radar stations and missile defences are probably a good idea as well.

The Liberal, the peacenik and the cost-sensitive libertarian would now argue the entire project's a boondoggle and miss an important nuance. The F-35 is the best money will be able to buy in a few years' time. Among US developments, it's the best bang for one's buck and second only to the F-22 Raptor, which is not for export. The project doesn't involve going shopping in Europe: a course of action that would bring zero benefits to Canadian companies as opposed to the current F-35 contracts.

Never forget, lastly, the Russian factor. The country may not be insane enough to risk being hit by the US nuclear umbrella, but it is an inherently childish superpower. Our purchase of older models such as the Super Hornets - or a pull-out from a major development - would be perceived as weakness in Moscow, with a consequent hardening of the Kremlin's Arctic stance for demagogic gain.

We can't afford to look weak to our biggest neighbour and we can't afford upsetting our closest. In the end, joint contracts like these are the safest way of maintaining a solid argument against US protectionists across the party spectrum. Call this the silver lining if you wish.

While we're at it, we should get Bombardier and the aerospace lot into the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle development. It will be the next "cool" fighter when it goes on sale.

Ignatieff seems completely oblivious to the ramifications of his misguided policies. His Russian blood isn't warning him of how weak Canada would look if it threw in the towel; his American and British experiences don't seem to suggest him that our partners would feel cheated; his Canadian blood won't stop him from throwing Canadian workers and industry under the bus. 

Is the guy for real?

Chez Ignatieff, abstraction is a scarce skill indeed.

Everything's pointing to an election, sooner rather than later. The ads are up on the Tory side, filling the airwaves before the writs inevitably strangle the Conservative media might. The NDP is brushing up its populism, skillfully debunked by Tasha Kheiriddin in the NP. More shockingly, the Liberals have pulled the stops on their drivel taps and shown yet again their ineptitude at elementary political abstraction.

Let me elaborate. For want of an intelligent question, an interviewer digs up an old scarecrow, which our Prime Minister rightfully dismisses. What one believes is not necessarily one's policy. Heavens above, the red party crows for a parliamentary vote on the PM's beliefs, confident of empty screaming being akin to enshrining something in truth. Hardly so! Ascribing the PM policy he never suggested is outright lying, and should be called as such. How I long for the day when a Liberal will stand up publicly and beg his own party's leadership to grow the heck up!

For one, being mendacious is contemptuous of the electorate one is called to represent. The Liberals constantly offend Canadians' intelligence by assuming no-one thinks beyond what they hear on the telly.

Secondly, clamouring for a vote on a policy the Government has no intention of pursuing - simply because someone may believe something - shows a deep ignorance of Parliament's role. The House of Commons is not the Grits', or anyone's sandpit! 

If those who aspire to lead us cannot muster enough integrity to abstract the man Harper from the office upon him bestowed, how can they be trusted to govern in our interest rather than their petty own?

The Senate doesn't get it!

For a Democrat-controlled Senate with a friendlier GOP presence, yesterday's halt to repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is either unabashed cowardice or - for the conspiracy theorists - a sop to interests unknown. It is an ill-designed policy geared at righting a human imperfection. Fearing and banishing that which does not conform to one's standard has been commonplace in our species. Seeking to avoid this (supposedly) triggering a breakdown of the armed forces, top brass came up with DADT and proceeded to completely screw it up. And I doubt the Senate's vote reflected any presence of common sense.

I'd like to know, for the sake of statistics, how many servicemen were dragged before hearings for breaking the "ask" clause, rather than the "tell" one. Bashing someone for being honest and open is easy. Applying the same standard to those who ask useless (or bullying) questions is a tad harder.

DADT has no practical use, for as far as I know a gay soldier's blood is no less red than a straight one's. 

It should either be applied across the board and with equal force against those who bother servicemen with queries about their sexual preferences, or struck off altogether; let the armed forces deal with the (oh, shock!) reality that gay people don't enlist to look at their comrades' junk. 

Their dedication to the country and its safety leads them to willingly sign off their independence and put their lives on the block. Prejudice and unfairness are not a legal tender to repay them with.

Sharing plenty of cheer in Pierrefonds-Dollard

Tories know how to party well, that's for sure. Yesterday's Pierrefonds-Dollard gala dinner was a blast. Firstly, the food and the company were amazing. In addition to members of the P-D EDA board and the Youth Committee, the event was attended by Barbara Pisani of Union-Montreal and, as guest of honour, Senator Brazeau. To complement the cultural and ethnic mix, the Filipino and Ukrainian community reps were present in their numbers, as well as volunteers and well-wishers hailing from a dozen national origins.

Agop Evereklian delivered an optimistic address, promising to "let loose"; nothing to hold the tabloid presses though. The political honours were done by Senator Brazeau, who focused on describing why he is Conservative despite the consensus in his community, at the time, that Algonquin interests lay in the Liberal Party. I am always amazed at the insight he is ready to give, and the ease with which one can approach him and chat. For someone as clueless on native affairs as I am, the Senator is a well of wisdom.

The Senator also took time, on the drive from Ottawa, to pen down twelve achievements and wishes of the conservative government - which guests were invited to sing out to the tune of "twelve days of Christmas". I wonder if anyone recorded it.

Laugh as we may, Conservatives have plenty to be proud of. For a minority government faced with an opportunistic and ambitious Opposition, we have survived for longer - and achieved more - than could ever be predicted. When push comes to shove, some say as early as next spring, we will be ready, willing and more than able. With candidates as Agop, and grassroots as I witnessed yesterday, we're truly deserving of being the natural governing party of Canada.

Assange is an opportunistic hypocrite, stop making a martyr of him.

Over-reactions are the greatest treat for rabble-rousers such as Julian Assange. Watching everyone go mental - over revelations that the diplomatic corps uses common sense and pragmatism - must be enjoyable with a bucket of popcorn and CNN blaring from the widescreen TV.

Is Assange a terrorist? If he were, he would have attempted to extort plenty of concessions from the governments concerned. Blackmail is effective as long as it is hidden from the public eye. Ergo he isn't. He is better described as a token sociology student on a liberal campus who hasn't grown up; the sole improvement on his campus utopianism is an acute opportunism.

He won't tackle Russia, China, North Korea, Iran or Syria for one, very important reason: he wants to stay alive. The shadiest regimes place little value on human life or foreign image. Were they to feel threatened, Assange would be stiff the next morning, and his staff with him.

Nor will Wikileaks ever get major scoops on these regimes either. Little value on life means, inevitably, the leaker's entire family and cohort of drinking buddies shot, or interned.

Wikileaks, and Julian Assange, know their victims will not harm them when push comes to shove. He is no freedom activist or world-changer. He will not stand up to the real bullies and will never knowingly place his life on the line. He is a voyeur whose fetish is watching - from a safe distance - "it" hit the fan and splatter.

Dear politicians: stop making a terrorist of who is - in reality - a hypocritical, opportunistic weakling. Just catch him, try him for what he is guilty of and give him what's coming to leakers.

Cablegate makes me trust my diplomatic services MORE, not less!

Whoever calls "cablegate" the 9/11 of diplomacy is guilty of exaggeration. I read some of the communications and personally think they are simply captivating. Most of them cover topics and opinions of more-than-common knowledge. We already knew, for instance, that the Saudis recently performed an air-defence shutoff drill, to allow Israeli planes to fly over the kingdom en route to bombing Iran. Is it a surprise to anyone, then, that the Saudi king himself wanted the US to do the dirty work in this Shia-Sunni struggle?

There is scope for scandal, as in any revelation of secret correspondence. Yet the laying bare of the nuts and bolts of diplomacy reveals, if anything, a greater amount of judgment and knowledge than we could ever have credited the American government with. Honestly, Washington would be quite daft not to take all this analysis into account, which they fail to do on a staggeringly regular basis.

I repeat: if Washington had used this intelligence fully, it would mess up its policies less often than it does now. 

Two cables, among the ones I read, really struck me as masterpieces of analysis. One is from the outgoing Ambassador to Zimbabwe (here), where we catch a rare glimpse behind all rhetorics into what really happens in that country. Another, much closer to home, comes from Moscow and deals with a diplomat's experience of a wedding in the Caucasus republic of Dagestan, a part of Russia. (here) 

If you're lazy, read only the last paragraphs from the latter, and you might understand why many state-building strategies tried in Afghanistan have failed. That one memo, in that God-forsaken country, could help us more than Macchiavelli's Prince in cracking the Afghan government model. Not top-down, but a patchwork of loyal local elders and warlords.

Anyone studying Intelligence Gathering 101 will, soon, be given a copy of this memo from the Department of State regarding, of all things, anti-American murals in Teheran being removed. It's the most exhaustive background and analysis guide I've seen about such a trivial topic. 

Favourite quote: the President of Yemen saying he doesn't mind whiskey smuggling into his ward, as long as it's good stuff and doesn't come with firearms and drugs.

All in all, these leaked cables hardly show collusion or some sort of conspiracy. They instead, in the majority of cases at least, paint a picture of diplomats and leaders who know exactly what's going on and can see through each other's lies. Imperfections and ignorance, such as Netanyahu being oblivious to the need for good and efficient governance in Palestine, merely confirm deductions based on previous behaviour patterns.  The "Honesty Award" goes to the aide to Chinese Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan Zhang Yannian, and His Excellency himself. The quote deserves to be reproduced in its entirety.

"This is all about money," he said. He understood from the Kyrgyz that they needed $150
million. The Ambassador explained that the U.S. does provide $150 million in assistance to Kyrgyzstan each year, including numerous assistance programs. Zhang suggested that the U.S. should scrap its assistance programs. "Just give them $150 million in cash" per year, and "you will have the Base forever." Very uncharacteristically, the silent young aide then jumped in: "Or maybe you should give them $5 billion and buy both us and the Russians out." The aide then withered under the Ambassador's horrified stare.

The aide's sole mistake was to simply sum up the total aid packages offered by China and Russia. The young and naive soul forgot the extra fee for keeping it quiet and converting it all to cash, about 3 billion. One for each interested party (Kyrgyz, Chinese and Russian).

This is not diplomacy's 9/11, yet. For those who believed they had US diplomats fooled, this will be a wake-up call. To everyone else, it's business as usual and some great insight. At least half of these memos are materials worthy of international relations textbooks, pity no-one can profit from them now.

Wikileaks' FAQ section is full of idealistic notions of principles, government accountability, human rights and other noble aspects of how human existence should proceed. Some of Assange's endeavours have indeed caused sea-changes in public perception. The latest is, as far as I can see and guess, a flop; aside from exposing the State Department's obsession with deluges of useless information (frequent flyer cards? come on!).

That countries are run differently from world affairs in general is no secret. A government has obligations to its citizens to rule transparently and account for what it does on home soil. Abroad, you're in a different world altogether. Diplomats must use local methods and knowledge to further their country's aims, even if by our standards they may seem objectionable. Julian Assange fails to grasp, apparently, the difference between living by your principles and impaling yourself on them. 

Call me a cynic. I am grateful that leaders and diplomats, in private, aren't as callous, deluded and clueless as they seem in public. It is reassuring.

Youth for Agop kicks off with a great event

Take a group of passionate youngsters, stir in motivated grown-ups and serve in a downtown location. The outcome: an awesome event by Youth for Agop at the Rosalies restaurant in Montreal.

The launch event shows how Agop's campaign in Pierrefonds-Dollard is betting on youth involvement to succeed. Judging by the quantity and quality of the turnout, we can expect great achievements from this bunch. Well-blended into the crowd, Senators Housakos and Brazeau were sharing their knowledge, experience and opinion. Closer to home, members of the Pierrefonds-Dollard association board were engaging with the younger guests, receiving feedback and scouting for campaign help. I also had the pleasure of meeting Outremont candidate Rodolphe Husny and Union-Montreal's Barbara Pisani.

The speakers explored several themes, hinging on personal experiences and the importance of young people in politics. This made the event delightfully unusual: traditional rhetoric was momentarily cast aside to reveal a great wealth of insight. One of the pearls, in my opinion, was provided by Agop himself. He reconciled the interests of youth and the older generation, quoting polls that show similarities in both groups' priorities.

This was followed by an unusual, yet true assessment: young people may own the future, but they always need the previous generation to help build it. Agop extends a very supportive hand, as I have had the opportunity to appreciate personally. Other candidates, and the Party, should definitely take notice of his strategy with youth involvement. The event of yesterday proves the value of both empowerment (which most politicians tend to dish out) and realistic discipline, which is often overlooked.

Agop reminded his younger audience that before making a really marked contribution to society, one must have been capable of succeeding in one's own endeavours. He sees, in his youth campaign, the awesome potential, the need for solid ground on which to stand on and the obvious limitations to what young activists can achieve alone.

With such an involved and in-touch candidate, Youth for Agop is set to become a very precious asset for his campaign. I really look forward to the next event and definitely urge all of my friends in DDO and Pierrefonds to lend Agop a hand.

Can we trust the town hall?

The Daily Telegraph spares no ammunition in attacking, today, an often unreported abuse of State power by pen-pushers and zealous idiots: the state-sanctioned abduction of children in the UK from loving families, with the complicity of family courts.

I will spare you the details, be it just said that the conflicts of interest and distortions of the principles of justice in these cases would make Mugabe look tame.

Social work and family law are not what worries me most about the story. The social work profession often does not get the credit for the positive influence it can have on vulnerable families. Yet it often appears to be nothing more than scum of the public payroll dealing with scum of the earth. The good, on both sides, gets drowned in filth.

The most worrying aspect of this phenomenon is the mastermind: local authorities, in whose employ or influence social workers, family courts and the paid "expert witnesses" lie. As Ezra Levant shows, Canada isn't immune to demented  bullies in town halls either: just look at the plight of the Jaworski family in Clarington.

When governments promise to return power to the people, the transfer is almost always assumed to be from state to local centres. This is a great mistake. There's no greater danger than a self-proclaimed local tyrant having greater powers bestowed upon him. 

Back in 1945, Hayek published his essay on The Use of Knowledge in Society, where he underlined how the individual close to the economic activity knew better about what was needed than a central authority. I believe we can extrapolate the argument, with some liberties, to power and oppression. The closer they are to the citizen, the more effective and pervasive they can be.

Why, do we think, the most efficient and terrifying totalitarian regimes often had to rely on people snitching on each other, rather than an all-knowing secret police? Trivially put, your neighbour knows sooner than the kommissar when you've strayed from the line. Your neighbour can keep watch on you much more efficiently than a paid policeman and, without intending to do so, force you into compliance.

How closer are we to our local authority than, say, the federal or provincial government? Imagine, for speculation's sake, a power-drunk local officer entrusted with the authority to audit your taxes. He would not be hampered by the deluge of information in a central office, nor by conflicting federal, provincial and local jurisdictions. 

When the State transfers power down to local authorities, it creates an army of mini-Judases and mini-Neros. If we are serious about liberty at all, we shouldn't merely seek to shift the power centre. We should seek, within reason, its abolition or constriction. While we are at it, we should ensure all new laws create safeguards against their own abuse, to avoid cases of an anti-terrorism act being used to spy on people's recycling habits.

Politicians and civil servants in the higher spheres (federal and provincial) are too juicy a morsel for scrutiny and exposure to pass them by. When you wish their power to move into the murk below, much closer to you, be careful what you wish for.

Lost in reporting

Garbage in - garbage out. I might put up with media bias, particularly at the CBC and its online outlet (the "garbage in"), if it were not compounded by readers' asinine commentary and just as asinine "approval" ("garbage out"). While other lefties waste elbow grease befouling news items and congratulating their ilk on their vandalism of truth, I prefer putting my neurons in gear and discovering what, if any, the CBC does not want its readers to know.

In a story about StatsCan reporting a decrease in homicide rates, including gangland murders, the pet topic of objectivity-haters from sea to sea was missing. I am talking, of course, of the Long Gun Registry and its influence, if any, on firearm crime. Commenters brayed about the LGR being successful, or the government suppressing the data, or other drivel I won't waste bytes on.

The CBC literally copy-pasted the entire Statistics Canada report, excluding the sections on registered firearms and spousal homicide.

Read and weep. Of murder weapons recovered between 2005 and 2009, 7 out of 10 were unregistered. In the four-year period considered, only 253 guns were recovered and checked against the registry.

In 2009, out of 179 firearm homicides, 122 (68%) were committed using a handgun, 29 (16%) using a rifle and 14 (8%) using a saw-off (14 are, apparently, undefined).

Assuming the proportions remained the same year after year between 2005 and 2009, registered and recovered murder firearms were split as follows: 67% rifles, 22% handguns and 12% saw-offs.

Compare the proportion of handguns used in murders (68%) to the proportion of handguns recovered and identified as a registered murder weapon (22%).

Want to make the long gun registry effective? Stop pretending it to be a deterrent. Remember that between 2002 and 2008, including five years since the implementation of the LGR, gun crime went UP.

Focus on its potential as a crime-solving tool for those 3 murders out of 10. Make it a one-off fee, merge the database with the firearm license database already kept by the RCMP and for the love of God make it contain the sole truly useful bit of information: the gun's signature on the bullet.

Let's rejoice that murders are down in Canada. And, while we're at it, let's keep it at that.

Go Agop for Pierrefonds-Dollard!

I had the pleasure, yesterday, of witnessing the official nomination of Agop Evereklian as the candidate for Pierrefonds-Dollard. Catching up with good friends and acquaintances was just part of what made the evening very enjoyable.

Agop, among other things, radiates common sense and pragmatism. In his speech to a full hall he praised his family, recounted his path to citizenship and debunked the usual myths told about Conservatives.

It was a refreshing speech to hear. In a crisp and clear language the new candidate for Pierrefonds-Dollard made clear where his roots, energy and loyalties lie: the family, an idea, and his community. I liked him when I first met him as the candidate for Laval-Les-Iles, and my admiration for Agop has grown over these months.

Pierrefonds-Dollard is a winnable riding, and I for one will offer all the support I can to ensure such an awesome man can spearhead the Island of Montreal back into the governing caucus. Go Agop!

www.goagop.ca

Apologising for doing your job?

To some, this is America "standing up", nobody really knows to what. To me, this is idiocy and hypocrisy.

In Portland, ME, just like everywhere in the world, September 11th 2010 was the end of the holy Muslim month of Ramadan. People of Islamic faith partied in the streets and celebrated their version of Christmas, almost. The Portland Press Herald covered the event. Due to the event's magnitude, the piece got the front page. Complaints flooded in, saying the piece was "unbalanced" because it didn't mention how a bunch of Islamic extremists committed an atrocious crime on the same day nine years prior.

That a local newspaper needs to apologise to its readership for covering a peaceful and joyful celebration because of its concomitance with an atrocity is quite silly.

Imagine the Armenian community kicked up a storm because papers decided to cover local Easter celebrations on April 24th 2011, rather than commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I would find it preposterous. Lack of prominent coverage bears no relation to denialism.

The editorial board of the Portland Press Herald made the right decision. A big event happened in Portland, Maine, on September 11th. A local paper covers the local event. If one wants raging 9/11 coverage and the inevitable punditry, dial in to the national papers or turn on the TV.

Context, people, context! If Scientific American went to the presses on Sept. 11th, would we expect the cover to be dedicated to the events of 9/11/01?

Let local papers serve the local community. If you're craving different news, turn on your ubiquitous TV with a gazillion channels advertising crap, or do a google news search. It isn't that hard, seeing that most of the vitriol came to the paper via web.