The Bloc in agony?

The Bloc Quebecois is running out of steam, as is blind Quebec nationalism at last.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071011.duceppe11/BNStory/National/home

While Mr Duceppe might relish in the knowledge that only his party is truly Quebecois, one seriously asks oneself the question of whether people actually care. To add to his ill-concealed xenophobia he garnishes his anti-Conservative and anti-Ottawa rants with slammings of multiculturalism, immigrants, English language and anything else he can think of, citing Quebec culture as ever so special as to not be manageable by some federal party that wasn't truly Quebecois.

Quebec is different from the rest of Canada, as is Ontario from Nunavut or PEI from Alberta, however speaking French more than the rest of the country seems to be a valid excuse for Mr Duceppe to lambast the Federation and claim even more protection for French in the province.

This kind of ill-aimed vitriol is a symptom of a deep ideological crisis within the Bloc. As always a party on its way into oblivion resorts to last-minute populism, trying to stir up the most mediocre feelings of those still foolable by harsh talk and gratuitious abuse. Conservatism will bury nationalism under the banner of freedom, common sense and tolerance. Forward!

Juggle your potatoes better next time, John Tory!

So John Tory lost in Ontario. Big deal. He made an amazing lot of mistakes, and had he won he'd have known it was due solely to his opponents' sins. The Conservatives might thank John Tory though. He ensured that several lessons are learned by the party and its local affiliates in one go, rather than spreading the learning process over more polls like butter over a Canada-shaped toast.

Tory's gaffes and venturing into hot topics were not helpful. In the rest of the world the Liberal parties are masters in the art of bringing their opponents down. I doubt Canada is an exception. As stated in much more depth on other BloggingTories blogs, one need not hide his opinions. However, the hottest potatoes should be dropped first, and let to cool down. Closer to election time it is time to juggle more everyday concerns.

Keeping with the potato metaphor, if one juggles cooler potatoes one doesn't burn his hands. Other candidates take note.

Recognise the plight of the Armenians!

Rice urges the Foreign Affairs Committee not to trouble relations with Turkey by ditching a Bill to recognize the genocide of Armenians by the Turks at the beginning of the last century. Earlier this week Turkey arrogantly stated that such a Bill would cause friction in bilateral relations between them and the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7038095.stm

Bend it as you like, what happened was not a war or an insurgency or whatever the Turks want us to believe. People were forced out of their homes, made to walk barefooted for hundreds of miles with nails in their feet and summarily killed merely because of their ethnicity (and possibly religion).

Not that the Turks were new to this kind of atrocity, just think of the massacres that occurred in Greece before it became free from the Turkish yoke. Just like then, they refuse to acknowledge any of their faults.

What happened was genocide. The Turks were trying to extirpate and possibly destroy the first Christian nation in history. If that's not genocide, I only wonder what is. With its claims to EU membership and modernisation, Turkey still fails to come to terms with its own history or its internal contradictions.

Do the EU countries want such behavior to go unnoticed at the negotiations table?
Do the US want to condone the denial and falsification of history?
Do we want to submit to the whim of hypocritical rulers who shut themselves in a closet of darkness, blindness, ignorance and deafness?
Do we want to bend our morals and integrity to suit a country that never ceased being, deep in its heart, Islamist and revisionist?

Armenians all over the world are crying out for justice and fairness, to have their plight recognized, to have the memory of their lost kin enshrined alongside those of the millions of innocent victims of blind hate and murderous madness.

If Turkey wants to be modern it has to recognize its past mistakes and learn from them. Otherwise a dangerous precedent will be set that will destroy the EU's moral stance and integrity.

Rice is spitting on the memory of all genocide victims. Excellent foreign policy tactic, Condi.

Northwest Passage belongs to Canada and USA

Somehow the opening up of the Northwest Passage seems to be heating up the tempers in the US and Canada. Reason: they can't agree on who controls the route. To make matters worse, other countries are pushing their claims to rights of exploitation of the route for shipping.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7033498.stm

A basic look at the map shows very clearly that only Canada and the US can claim those waters, with an option for Denmark in case ships want to sail close to Greenland. A ship would enter the Arctic through the US-controlled part of the Bering Strait, sail along the Alaskan coast and then enter Canadian waters, exiting in Atlantic Canada.

I'm not a geographer nor a lawyer, but claims by other countries to that route seem ludicrous to say the least. If I discover Russia is one of the claimants I will laugh: they claim half of the Arctic seabed for themselves and want free rein in the Northwest Passage as well!

If that route will need maintenance of any sort (icebreakers or other routine operations) then it will only be fair for a joint US-Canadian venture to charge fees for the route's use. If there's no maintenance then standard territorial water rules should apply. Ultimately if you don't want a ship in your territorial waters why should you let it in through that Arctic backdoor?

Proportional Representation sucks. Full stop.

This matter has been debated ad nauseam on Canadian blogs, but it deserves unlimited mention due to its importance. The introduction of proportional representation in Ontario, to any extent, is wrong. Politics is never a one-man game, however the relationship between a representative and his/her constituents is a sacred bond that PR severs.

First off, PR puts all the political power in the hands of the party apparatchiks, who reward obedience to their whim by assigning candidates to higher positions on the list. Parties demand a degree of ideological consistency among their members and candidates, but PR is the starting point of dictatorships within the various parties that fight the elections. If progress is driven by the difference of opinions and debate, the connection between PR and the degradation of politics is plainly evident.

Secondly voters have the right to know who they are voting for. They have the right to quiz the candidate and make their decision based on the candidate's merits. PR takes the candidate's individuality away in favour of a general and frequently insipid platform, designed to address some major issues, leaving local issues to sort themselves out somehow.

Which leads me to the third argument against PR. A representative is the voice of the people that vote for him/her. Many local issues need a hand (or a reminder) from the central authority to be addressed, such as road by-passes to ease congestion. With the current system, a local candidate has to be aware of local issues and bring them to the attention of the institution he will belong to if elected. In a proportional system it is unrealistic to expect tens of candidates from the same party to agree on a list of local priorities since they probably won't feel any attachment to any particular district anyway.

Italian politics has been marred by PR since its inception, making it a mediocre political system that reeks so much you can smell it a mile away. Ten years of first-past-the-post didn't help either, since smaller parties didn't just vanish. Instead, they formed coalitions with larger parties and demanded to have candidates fielded in safe districts in exchange for their support.

PR culture is like a cancer: you can't cure it. Don't let this kind of junk into Canadian politics, or the consequences will be felt by our descendants as well.

Propriety Police - God save us from such stupidity

While the US are realizing that spreading democracy isn't just about Election Days, Starbucks and rock music, the party most governments prefer to deal with in Palestine (Fatah) sends out a new kind of police, the "Propriety Police". These guys are charged with the amazingly vital task of ensuring that improper behavior does not occur during Ramadan, such as smoking, eating before sunset and social interaction between young men and young women.

Right, is this the kind of behavior we expect from the moderate party we deal with? We froze all funding to the Hamas nutters because we deemed them radicals and terrorists who didn't recognize Israel, but Fatah is no better deal. Having tasted the rampant radicalism in certain segments of society, they are keen to monkey those whom they earlier despised. Rounding up to the lowest common denominator is, as usual, the easy way out.

What hope can there be for a society where a blatant denial of rights and freedoms by a government is at best greeted with enthusiasm and at worst just frowned upon? If I want a sandwich I should be free to get it at any time, be it day or night, from someone who is willing to sell it to me.

Be it Propriety Police, a National Committee for the Prevention of Nose-Picking or any other nonsense it has no place in a society on the way to progress. Bland attitudes to such patronizing behavior are a symptom of complacency and gullibility.

Considering the kind of ranting they hear all the time from their local radical leaders the hopes for progress in what used to be one of the Middle East's most promising pseudo-democracies look bleak. If they are visible at all.

Today is Thanksgiving Day. Among the thanks we raise to the Almighty, thank Him for the precious right to think and decide for ourselves that Canada and other real democracies grant us.

A Global Farce

So Zimbabwe has been selected by African nations to chair the UN body on Sustainable Development. In response to the critics who mentioned Zimbabwe's dismal human rights record, the country's Ambassador to the UN blurted "What have human rights got to do with sustainable development?". The BBC was quick to remove that quote from their story overnight. Another shining gem of Zimbabwean political strategy was to claim that asking the African group to change their candidate was an insult as it implied that "Africans can't think".

Well here are some bits of commonsense for you. Human rights happen to be the basis of sustainable development. It is the aim to bring about economic development while at the same time keeping the environment safe and improving the quality of life of the country's population, rather than siphoning off all the money to private accounts as many African politicians seem to do with great gusto. Zimbabwe has shown no record whatsoever of even attempting to achieve those aims, let alone telling others to follow in their "righteous" path. The mere thought of such a pariah sitting on some top seat in any international organisation makes stomachs turn and twist!

The casting of a ballot for Zimbabwe is a display of patent lack of any kind of intelligence or political knowledge, let alone common sense. African nations sure can think, but it doesn't mean they always think right. By nominating Zimbabwe they managed to undo many efforts to gain respectability on the international stage, and have done more damage to the UN and the cause of sustainable development than the USA could ever dream of doing.

Sustainable development is the future, it needs a strong cause leadership and political sway. Countries are struggling to achieve sustainable development, trying as hard as they can to catch up with the best technologies and strategies available. Look at any country that hasn't got a civil war going on. Take any country that is trying to achieve the aims set out in the millenium development goals. What the cause of sustainable development needs is leadership by example. The current system of regional chairmanship rotation doesn't help either: why should a leader be determined by the region of origin? If a leader is good then he must stay. If a country runs a body well it should bloody well keep doing it. And if you have to select a stricly African country, at least choose someone respectable, like Kenya for instance. Not Zimbabwe!

This is just the latest move that will make a joke of sustainable development and the United Nations as a whole, like it needed any more beating. Zimbabwe sitting in the UN is already a perverted quirk, just because there's no rapid procedure for booting out a country and its moronic representatives. This latest twist is just what will show how ineffective and corrupt the UN is on the inside, among its member nations. Who will respect the UN after its members voted in the world's pariah to lead one of its key causes? Nice job, dumbasses!

Keep the Lords CLEAN

The House of Commons has expressed a preference for more elected peers in the Lords, marking what I deem to be the beginning of the end of parliamentary sovereignty in Britain. Until today the Lords have acted as a check on the Government excesses that the Commons have to bow to, as the voting records can show easily. A nearly powerless but wise House, with an over-riding clause should the Commons wish to impose their will was the best arrangement for a country such as Britain. Citizens could look at Westminster knowing that in that building there were two powerful forces keeping each other in balance: the Commons, expression of people's wants, passions, desires, excesses and the Lords, who were not as accountable to their constituents but had to justify such an anachronism by applying their wisdom rather than manifesting party loyalties.

I recently attended a very informative, albeit uncontroversial panel discussion regarding a written British Constitution. Leaving aside the rest of the discussion, a point was raised about the Lords having more legitimacy in the people's eyes if the House was more elected than appointed or wholly elected.

But this is not merely a question of democracy, as the Commons is already the most powerful House and can impose its will if necessary. It is a question of class and, let me say it, British style. The Houses aren't named randomly. The Commons is what its name says: the House representing the will of all us commoners, from the benefit fraud underclass to the rich businessmen, from the apathetic and lazy to the activists and lobbyists. It has a legitimate right to be the most powerful House because ultimately the State has to do the people's bidding.

The Lords is the house of the enlightened aristocracy. We can argue at will about the need for a House of Lords or for any aristocratic representation at all, but the fact remains that currently the Lords do not have to face party candidate selections, do not have to follow the whims of the majority in their constituencies and can calmly sit and do what they like, trying to keep up the good name of the House by being wise and voting accordingly.

What we have in proposition is now the reduction of the Lords to an even greater resemblance of what the Commons are, including all the political squabbling, favours and brown-nosing that mar any democracy. A Commoner can rebel and is stigmatised for it. At the next party candidate selection he might be pushed to a side in his seat in favour of a more loyal careerist youngster junked up on party ideology and the leader's personality cult. Is this what we want to see in the red House?

I say now and forever NO to a majority of elected Lords or anywhere close to that level of elected influence. Every citizen who disagreed with the Government's manias could look up to the Lords and know they would stand up for common sense because they didn't have to fear for their seat. Now the citizen will be left at the mercy of party politicking, whips and technocracy.

The Government doesn't know the ground it is venturing into is unsafe. If the Lords are subject to electorate and party influence there will be nothing left to act as a check on the Government, be it Labour or Conservative. If fighting citizen disillusionment with politics is the aim, this Lords reform achieves all but that.

Smart Power is yesterday!

Anyone advocating "smart power" as a combination of brute force and attractiveness misses a key point: we have lost the lead in it.

America had a great opportunity to exercise its smart power, having emerged victorious from the cold war. Their model was triumphant, their military might unparalleled and feared the world over. People saw the US as a shining light at the end of a tunnel.

What do we have today? Compare the US to a company with a "panic button" which represents brute force. In the rare occasions when the panic button is pushed everyone gives 110% to ensure the company stays afloat. The panic button is revered and its call is taken as an appeal to an employee's honour and loyalty. But what if the panic button keeps on being pushed every five minutes? Everyone is disillusioned, people seek alternative employment, the company falls apart.

Same thing with the US today. By squandering its military might in useless efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq the US have weakened their appeal for their military failures bleaken their successes in other areas. It's not about imposing your way of thinking and your system on populations who in all honesty aren't ready for it. National security is about mere survival. If somebody threatens to nuke you, you nuke him first. Plain and simple, use force only when needed. Instead the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have become a mishmash of national security, flawed democracy, Halliburton and God knows what else.

The US can't use smart power at all because they lack one of the components, and Europe is too weak on its own. They've got the "I told you not to" high ground, but this is no good tactic for attracting people to your model.

Where will "smart power" come from then? My bets are on India and China. Nations are eyeing up to them as a model for economic development, these countries are investing in Africa and Central Asia, they know their stuff. They don't waste time arguing with the US because they know there's a whole world out there ready to be conquered. You can't mess with them as their military (especially nuclear) might is something to fear without hesitation. Face it, they've got the lead now and they will use it.

Our soft power is our only resort. And we can use it only if we expand our horizons showing everyone else that we are doing it and achieving marvellous results. What are our assets?

1) Education. Our systems are the best. In their diversity they give the individual something beyond mere technical knowledge necessary for his/her profession. It is a global outlook and hopefully a mind that values ambition and effort. As long as other educational systems focus on the utilitarian approach to education, we've got a competitive advantage that we must rub in their faces. Not to impose our system on them, but to encourage them to change their system to something maybe even better than ours!

2) Our values.

We are founded on freedom. Freedom for an individual to dream, to live according to his wills, to satisfy his wants, to make his own decisions.

We are founded on rights. The right to own yourself and everything associated with your life, to own property and dispose of it as you see fit, to pursue your ambitions, to express your thinking and seek knowledge.

We are founded on the individual. Everything begins and ends at every single one of us. No entity is above the individual and his imprescriptible rights. No family, no State, no culture.

These mere three values are worth more than any might, because we are in the RIGHT. We have to realise this and stand armed with these three spears against the aggression by sets of values that aim to impose constraints on our rights, on our freedom or on the individual as a whole. And I speak of China especially here.

3) Trade. The exchange of goods fosters more efficient production and ultimately the best use of resources. Trade is a double-edged weapon, and we can use both edges. It is a vector for conveying our success to others (e.g. exporting our better products) as well as a coercion tool (I won't trade with you because you are crap). Let me exemplify with two controversial case studies:

a) GM seeds being sold to Africa. Now I am no expert in the field of agriculture, but if someone can't grow anything good on his land and we have something that'll grow like mad, it seems reasonable that we will want to sell this good and the poor sod will want to buy it. Free trade, duh. If the African countries don't want to be dependent on our seeds then sometime soon they'll realise that maybe building a lab and a factory is a better investment than buying AK-47s for rebels in a neighbouring country. Their squandering of their own resources and of our aid is no concern of ours because in a liberal world the entity has the right to make wrong decisions.

b) The Jackson-Vanik amendment and the extensions of it I advocate. If trade is free then I'm free to choose whom to trade with. And if the country doesn't satisfy my criteria then I must be free to not trade with them. If we set our criteria wisely we can compel the most despotic and mediocre countries into reform. Not necessarily "our reform", but some kind of change driving them into a new direction.

But is this all? Is it the usual "clash of civilisations" talk? Us against them? Right against wrong? Good against Evil? The never-ending deadlock that lies at the origin of today's troubles, trapping us in a spiral of mediocrity and utter short-sightedness and idiocy? Of course not. If we want others to change and follow our lead we've got to demonstrate we are going somewhere.

Now I maintain that our way of thinking as defined by the culture of freedom, independence, free trade and liberalism is the best so far achieved by mankind. While other mentalities/cultures might have enhanced certain positive aspects of human beings (industriousness, attachment to one's family, loyalty, etc) they have failed miserably to achieve the fine balance that allows our yet imperfect society to function as the leader in world progress. We've made the G7, for God's sake!

The greatest asset we possess is the ability to challenge ourselves and our knowledge. We can think centuries ahead, dream up new ideas, new approaches, new ways of thinking. Our greatest treasure and our best export is therefore ambition and the willingness to pursue it.

We've got an advantage over those able to use smart power: our soft power is stronger, is based on solid ground and is open to progress. Lets therefore focus on developing our thinking and rubbing our advantage into the faces of those who think they're smart enough to progress without reforming their ways.

If we are strong enough to demonstrate our superiority despite a lack of hard power we will show hard power is barely needed at all in a globalised, informatised, liberalised and ultimately CIVILISED world.

The slavery of minds

Frequently discussions with people revolve around their analysis of virtually everything at the mere surface, with deeper contemplation of any underlying issues left to some unknown power and any cogent conclusions dismissed as nothing of their concern. If mediocrity were to feed on itself and breed like a hermaphrodite then its mere existence would be explained.

Acknowledgement of a fact comes with greater ease than its analysis and criticism, and its acceptance as a simple truth on which to base assumptions which in turn hold as true without verification is the haven in which the ignorant, the mediocre and the deceivers seek refuge. The reason why history repeats itself is not because people lack knowledge about it but because there's a general lack of understanding of historical events. What however is most disturbing is the more and more widespread encouragement not to seek understanding but to agree to be spoon-fed information to build knowledge and understanding.

A new slavery is emerging, subtler than the old kind, but ten times deadlier. More and more people are relying on spoon-fed information rather than digging for it themselves. Relying exclusively on the facts and opinions advocated on television and in the press can in no way contribute to the creation of a critical mind, let alone a reasoning one. Ergo mankind is slowly and non-uniformly but inexhorably drifting towards total surrender of individual thought, replaced by a carefully planned and thought-out collective mentality.

Despite this objective being inherently socialist in its nature, parties on all sides of the political spectrum contribute to it with equal gusto. Among the many reasons that can lead a short-sighted person to endorse such aberrations is short-term gain: dumbening the electorate helps keep the voting pattern stable, whereas critically thinking voters are more likely to cause greater swings were politicians to fail in the fulfilment of their promises.

What we urgently need is a movement to advocate the right of every individual to think for himself and to push for appropriate changes in both education and information delivery. Although I maintain that individuals must be able to make the wrong choices I firmly condemn the systematic denial of choice in the first place. There is no clear indication to the individual of making a choice to be spoon-fed information, but he is expected to "think outside the box" out of his own initiative.

We need to foster this initiative in the first place, otherwise every day more and more individuals will go down the road to slavery without having contemplated the broad range of choices available to them.