Italy's antitrust watchdog ruled today that it is not OK for local municipalities to impose compulsory closing days on commercial enterprises (i.e. shops). The ruling came after a complaint against the Rome municipality, which fined shopkeepers who opened up on Easter Monday.
This precedent will allow anyone owning a shop to be open anytime they wish, be it a working day or a Sunday, without the constraint of town bureaucrats gagging business supposedly in the interest of the workers, who need in the mind of these statist wonks to be shielded from the (by default) exploitative owner and greedy capitalist.
Reactions range from relief (consumers) to outright condemnation, with the Archbishop of Pompei even calling it an "attack against God", while others point the finger against consumerism, spout unionist drivel or attempt to sound academic about changing society and shops as social space. They are so full of bull!
The very essence of free enterprise in a capitalist society is being able to do business how one wishes to. A little bastion of socialism and nonsense has fallen in Italy. Sadly there's still way to go before I can call my home country a truly economically and socially free nation.
Sunday, 6 April 2008
Thursday, 3 April 2008
What kind of mother
can do this to the baby she bears in her womb?
To learn that not only drug-addicted babies are born and have to suffer the consequences of their brainless mothers' recklessness but that their numbers are so high is truly chilling. More chilling, though, are some of the comments to the story. Some people advocate forced sterilizations, some support the idea of criminal proceedings for damage to the unborn, others lay the blame on the insufficient amount of welfare. The same person states:
Surely more could have been done earlier to prevent them from beginning to do drugs in the first place. Surely they could have educated about pregnancy prevention, about responsibility to self and others. And surely they could have been educated about the unattractiveness of single motherhood as a choice (and it often isn't). By parents and family first and foremost. By the school system secondly.
However we cannot allow such well-intentioned permissivism to permeate policymaking. The link between poverty, single motherhood and drugs is not causal. You do drugs because you do drugs, period. And while everyone chooses their own poison there's nothing guaranteeing anyone the right to choose anyone else's. While single motherhood is challenging from a work-life balance and financial perspective, there is no situation whereby the only options are either welfare or selling drugs.
I shall not ramble on. But a few key concepts deserve mention:
A) Accepted pregnancy automatically carries responsibility for a being incapable of making autonomous decisions. And despite all the good-ism two months without a period and morning sickness might sound a few bells. Therefore there is a direct responsibility of the mother for consciously destroying her child's physical abilities and such responsibility (or abjuration of) must be accounted for. How, that's up to policymakers and society to decide.
B) The notion of drug use and abuse as a consequence of factors beyond people's control has to be eradicated from the public perception as an obvious, dangerous and destructive fallacy brought by permissivist traitors of common sense and perpetuated by weak-minded mediocrocrats. The needle doesn't find your vein and the spliff doesn't undergo spontaneous combustion. For God's sake do whatever you want with your body and your life, but blame it on no-one but yourself and don't let it maim others.
C) Although the social stigma might lead us to conclude that the problem is mainly affecting single mothers, nothing in the article says so. It could just as well have been future mommy and daddy happily smoking crack in their back garden with their junkie friends. It could have been future mommy and daddy chainsmoking spliffs. This isn't a problem of insufficient welfare. It could be a problem of insufficient treatment. It definitely is, though, a problem of lack of education, lack of character-building, lack of law enforcement and a spreading culture of everything being allowed without the need to face the consequences.
Life is tough. It's tougher when you're weak and ignorant. It's tougher on others when you are irresponsible. All those three notions should be carved in your mind since childhood. And for that last point you must pay.
"They are sweating and crying. They can't breathe. They have fast heart rates, vomiting and diarrhea. We have to actually give them morphine to make their life bearable," said Hay earlier this week.
Drug-addicted newborns suffer everything from drug withdrawal to kidney failure, strokes and heart attacks.
"We need to start doing the same for drug addicted-affected babies, particularly for cocaine, marijuana, crystal meth and heroin," said Hay.
To learn that not only drug-addicted babies are born and have to suffer the consequences of their brainless mothers' recklessness but that their numbers are so high is truly chilling. More chilling, though, are some of the comments to the story. Some people advocate forced sterilizations, some support the idea of criminal proceedings for damage to the unborn, others lay the blame on the insufficient amount of welfare. The same person states:
"It is about addictions and the conditions in society that promote the downslide of women into poverty and despair. Drug addicted women can often barely look after themselves, so the task of nurturing their unborn or newborn is overwhelming and incomprehensible to them. "
[...]
"But a single mom selling drugs can make more in a few days than she can all month on welfare. And the gap between selling and using is small. "
Surely more could have been done earlier to prevent them from beginning to do drugs in the first place. Surely they could have educated about pregnancy prevention, about responsibility to self and others. And surely they could have been educated about the unattractiveness of single motherhood as a choice (and it often isn't). By parents and family first and foremost. By the school system secondly.
However we cannot allow such well-intentioned permissivism to permeate policymaking. The link between poverty, single motherhood and drugs is not causal. You do drugs because you do drugs, period. And while everyone chooses their own poison there's nothing guaranteeing anyone the right to choose anyone else's. While single motherhood is challenging from a work-life balance and financial perspective, there is no situation whereby the only options are either welfare or selling drugs.
I shall not ramble on. But a few key concepts deserve mention:
A) Accepted pregnancy automatically carries responsibility for a being incapable of making autonomous decisions. And despite all the good-ism two months without a period and morning sickness might sound a few bells. Therefore there is a direct responsibility of the mother for consciously destroying her child's physical abilities and such responsibility (or abjuration of) must be accounted for. How, that's up to policymakers and society to decide.
B) The notion of drug use and abuse as a consequence of factors beyond people's control has to be eradicated from the public perception as an obvious, dangerous and destructive fallacy brought by permissivist traitors of common sense and perpetuated by weak-minded mediocrocrats. The needle doesn't find your vein and the spliff doesn't undergo spontaneous combustion. For God's sake do whatever you want with your body and your life, but blame it on no-one but yourself and don't let it maim others.
C) Although the social stigma might lead us to conclude that the problem is mainly affecting single mothers, nothing in the article says so. It could just as well have been future mommy and daddy happily smoking crack in their back garden with their junkie friends. It could have been future mommy and daddy chainsmoking spliffs. This isn't a problem of insufficient welfare. It could be a problem of insufficient treatment. It definitely is, though, a problem of lack of education, lack of character-building, lack of law enforcement and a spreading culture of everything being allowed without the need to face the consequences.
Life is tough. It's tougher when you're weak and ignorant. It's tougher on others when you are irresponsible. All those three notions should be carved in your mind since childhood. And for that last point you must pay.
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Mugabe's April fools ... or not?
Zimbabwe has been a messy business for years. It just got messier.
The recent rumoured election results, as most know, give the butcher Mugabe losing to opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. Official results, however, are delayed. And I am not surprised.
Those who place high hopes in Mugabe taking the advice being showered upon him from all corners to quit, run and hide sound well-intentioned and noble but naive to me. A look at the assasin's record would freeze anyone's blood, and I for one am all too sure he wouldn't hesitate to murder half of his country beginning with the election commission if he needed to do so to stay in power.
I pray for Zimbabwe and I pray for Mugabe's criminal fury to have grown colder, or at least withered with age. I pray for him to go and for there to be as little blood as possible. But I prepare myself for the bitterness of waking up one morning and finding out Mugabe still steers Zimbabwe on its route to destruction.
I have no place in Italian politics
This is a pretty straightforward explanation for why Italian politics looks like a total muddle to me, and why I am frequently accused by fellow members of the Italian expat (and not) community of being a hypocrite because I criticize every candidate's position as inappropriate for the country but will end up voting anyway.
Yes I do vote, I do not waste my ballot. And No, I do not choose the least worst candidate, nor do I vote a party "to keep the other guy out".
The "Politometro" gives 15 statements which I can totally/partially agree/disagree with or be neutral. The statements span topics such as research freedom, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, trade unions, civil partnerships, school vouchers, nuclear energy, returning to Iraq, deregulation, minimum wage, flat tax, etc. If my fiscal conservative - social libertarian mix is anything to go by, no major PM candidate in Italy is the right choice for me.
So it should come as no surprise to anyone that my vote (in the foreign North America constituency) went not to a candidate representing the party closest to my views but to the person I judged most suitable (based on total lack of information or campaigning save by Berlusconi's party) to represent expat views in the national parliament: both the youngest and only foreign-born Italian in the candidate list. Incidentally, a woman too. I wish her success.
Yes I do vote, I do not waste my ballot. And No, I do not choose the least worst candidate, nor do I vote a party "to keep the other guy out".
The "Politometro" gives 15 statements which I can totally/partially agree/disagree with or be neutral. The statements span topics such as research freedom, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, trade unions, civil partnerships, school vouchers, nuclear energy, returning to Iraq, deregulation, minimum wage, flat tax, etc. If my fiscal conservative - social libertarian mix is anything to go by, no major PM candidate in Italy is the right choice for me.
So it should come as no surprise to anyone that my vote (in the foreign North America constituency) went not to a candidate representing the party closest to my views but to the person I judged most suitable (based on total lack of information or campaigning save by Berlusconi's party) to represent expat views in the national parliament: both the youngest and only foreign-born Italian in the candidate list. Incidentally, a woman too. I wish her success.
Monday, 31 March 2008
Long Knives in the Liberal Camp
Liberal leader Stephane Dion desperately tries to maintain some order in his caucus by demoting capable critics and allowing rumours of major reshuffles to spread, hurting his most capable potential heirs such as Michael Ignatieff. Meanwhile, the CTV also presents us with some damning poll data from Dion's home province and his own hometown, Quebec city, showing the Liberals rock bottom and the Tories trailing the withering Bloc. L. Ian McDonald commented:
A leader without a base is like a prophet without a homeland
It is in dark times such as these that a wise leader abandons ego and desires for control and embraces the age-old wisdom: the best way to stay in power is to surround yourself with people brighter than you. People who can galvanize support, inspire trust and cast an image of professionalism and ability to discharge great duties. Dion is attempting to do the exact opposite, removing popular aides in order to give more prominence to the likes of Bob Rae. Although that might make him a little more popular in Ontario this is not a successful strategy for the remaining provinces.
It is not a safe route either, as Rae is an ambitious politician who no doubt eyes up the Liberal leadership without necessarily coming across as a viable alternative to Stephen Harper. A Rae leadership, though more colourful than Dion's, would be easier to fire on judging by the man's record in Ontario.
It is time for Dion to realize the danger he is putting his party in, resheath the knives and let a capable team of charismatic true leaders overshadow his blatant inability to keep a party caucus in line.
A leader without a base is like a prophet without a homeland
It is in dark times such as these that a wise leader abandons ego and desires for control and embraces the age-old wisdom: the best way to stay in power is to surround yourself with people brighter than you. People who can galvanize support, inspire trust and cast an image of professionalism and ability to discharge great duties. Dion is attempting to do the exact opposite, removing popular aides in order to give more prominence to the likes of Bob Rae. Although that might make him a little more popular in Ontario this is not a successful strategy for the remaining provinces.
It is not a safe route either, as Rae is an ambitious politician who no doubt eyes up the Liberal leadership without necessarily coming across as a viable alternative to Stephen Harper. A Rae leadership, though more colourful than Dion's, would be easier to fire on judging by the man's record in Ontario.
It is time for Dion to realize the danger he is putting his party in, resheath the knives and let a capable team of charismatic true leaders overshadow his blatant inability to keep a party caucus in line.
Friday, 28 March 2008
PEI pregnancy prevention programme to continue
I am currently overwhelmed with university duties but wanted to share a little piece of good news and common sense. The PEI teenage pregnancy prevention programme whose forecoming closure I mentioned a few weeks ago will be receiving funds after all and will be able to continue, as per CBC reporting.
I'm glad this cheap yet efficient initiative was not allowed to go down the drain, and I wish to see more such programmes throughout Canada. Owing to the small investments needed, I am adamant to see them more or entirely funded by generous private donations, thus freeing them from dependence on federal or provincial funds. Maybe then we'll avoid repeating this kind of bungle.
I'm glad this cheap yet efficient initiative was not allowed to go down the drain, and I wish to see more such programmes throughout Canada. Owing to the small investments needed, I am adamant to see them more or entirely funded by generous private donations, thus freeing them from dependence on federal or provincial funds. Maybe then we'll avoid repeating this kind of bungle.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
No referendum, huh?
Pauline Marois wants the PQ to abandon its referendum pledge for the time being. Unsurprizing.
Having realized the continued impunity with which Quebec can pursue its most questionable discriminatory objectives through indiscriminate (pardon the pun) use of the notwithstanding clause and provincial prerogative, Pauline Marois is contemplating maintaining the status quo.
Why? My guess is Madame Marois has the wonderful idea of continuing to wrestle with Ottawa, claim more and more prerogative, continue applying or proposing her insane policies such as the law on Quebec citizenship without the province being hailed before an international body and held accountable for its despicable course. In its perverseness, the current situation allows Quebec's harassment of English speakers and potentially many other categories to be shielded from global ridicule by the cover of the Canadian umbrella and the notwithstanding clause. Smart as she undoubtedly is, Marois has all the interest in preserving Quebec in Canada in order to continue scaring us with insane legislation without fear of reprisal and build up the party's support base.
Marois' stance on pushing the referendum back in the priority list is a decoy, and everyone knows it. Except Dion, of course, who appears to contemplate an independent Quebec sometime:
Referendum time has passed, people don't want to leave Canada. Unless Dion wants more businesses to move to Toronto his remarks are a destruction of his credibility as a federalist. If he were a chameleon I'd say this time he's shown his true colour.
Having realized the continued impunity with which Quebec can pursue its most questionable discriminatory objectives through indiscriminate (pardon the pun) use of the notwithstanding clause and provincial prerogative, Pauline Marois is contemplating maintaining the status quo.
Why? My guess is Madame Marois has the wonderful idea of continuing to wrestle with Ottawa, claim more and more prerogative, continue applying or proposing her insane policies such as the law on Quebec citizenship without the province being hailed before an international body and held accountable for its despicable course. In its perverseness, the current situation allows Quebec's harassment of English speakers and potentially many other categories to be shielded from global ridicule by the cover of the Canadian umbrella and the notwithstanding clause. Smart as she undoubtedly is, Marois has all the interest in preserving Quebec in Canada in order to continue scaring us with insane legislation without fear of reprisal and build up the party's support base.
Marois' stance on pushing the referendum back in the priority list is a decoy, and everyone knows it. Except Dion, of course, who appears to contemplate an independent Quebec sometime:
In Ottawa, of all places, Marois's plan received a somewhat more favourable
reception.
"I think it's a good move," Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion told
reporters after a caucus meeting.
"I think a responsible secessionist leader should not rush to a referendum, should first build strong support, a clear majority for separation and once it's done, it's time to go to a referendum."
Referendum time has passed, people don't want to leave Canada. Unless Dion wants more businesses to move to Toronto his remarks are a destruction of his credibility as a federalist. If he were a chameleon I'd say this time he's shown his true colour.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Credit to McGuinty when credit is due
I guess I rarely say this, but Dalton McGuinty might be drifting toward the right track here. He plans to create long-term re-training programmes to help laid-off workers acquire new skills, parallel to the federal government's unemployment benefit that runs out in 36 weeks.
Credit to Stephen Harper for not giving in to the welfarists (although a little concession for those who are in the process of full time skill re-training might be in order) and credit to McGuinty when due. Instead of clinging onto welfare he might be on the road to rowing Ontario out of its manufacturing rut. Maybe, just maybe.
Credit to Stephen Harper for not giving in to the welfarists (although a little concession for those who are in the process of full time skill re-training might be in order) and credit to McGuinty when due. Instead of clinging onto welfare he might be on the road to rowing Ontario out of its manufacturing rut. Maybe, just maybe.
Sunday, 2 March 2008
Democrats bash NAFTA and Canadian Gov't
This is too funny to be made up, honestly!
Democratic wonk Bob Shrum is hinting that the Canadian Government is trying to help John McCain win the White House by downplaying the Democratic candidates' pledges on scrapping NAFTA, citing a CTV report on Barack Obama's promises being hot air.
Leaving aside the simple fact that the latter is true, I fully agree with David Frum's definition of Democrats and liberals as thriving on division, differences and discord. Where there's distrust, fear, alienation there's the liberal octopus, the Liberpus if you like, extending its welfarist, statalist and isolationist tentacle. It is no surprise that the Democrats are trying to woo blue-collar workers to the ballot box in November by promising to abolish consumer sovereignty and foreign development opportunities. It is no surprise either that having realized the soundness of McCain's arguments they are attempting to discredit him as a receptor of foreign influence. Having no chance to alienate both Canada and Mexico by destroying NAFTA, they are going for the 50% mark by upsetting Canada.
Scrapping NAFTA would make it more difficult for US companies to sell abroad and increase the price of Canadian and Mexican imports, paradoxically damaging the same blue collars that today advocate NAFTA's demise. Both Clinton and Obama know it, and wouldn't dare damaging their country once in office.
As any other trade agreement, NAFTA can be improved. But let there be no doubt that free trade is the only way for countries to realize their full potential and progress on the path to greater development. If Obama bashes free trade so eagerly, let me remind him that were the US to open up their agricultural markets fully and unlimitedly to Kenyan produce his Kenyan kin would enjoy greater demand for their products, bringing greater prosperity to that African country. Without any need for foreign aid out of the taxpayer's pocket, with greater choice and lower prices for American consumers. The public wins, government wonks and lobbies lose.
If this is Bob Shrum's best shot at campaign strategy I'd classify his pay as welfare rather than a wage. Because his strategy isn't worth a dime.
Democratic wonk Bob Shrum is hinting that the Canadian Government is trying to help John McCain win the White House by downplaying the Democratic candidates' pledges on scrapping NAFTA, citing a CTV report on Barack Obama's promises being hot air.
Leaving aside the simple fact that the latter is true, I fully agree with David Frum's definition of Democrats and liberals as thriving on division, differences and discord. Where there's distrust, fear, alienation there's the liberal octopus, the Liberpus if you like, extending its welfarist, statalist and isolationist tentacle. It is no surprise that the Democrats are trying to woo blue-collar workers to the ballot box in November by promising to abolish consumer sovereignty and foreign development opportunities. It is no surprise either that having realized the soundness of McCain's arguments they are attempting to discredit him as a receptor of foreign influence. Having no chance to alienate both Canada and Mexico by destroying NAFTA, they are going for the 50% mark by upsetting Canada.
Scrapping NAFTA would make it more difficult for US companies to sell abroad and increase the price of Canadian and Mexican imports, paradoxically damaging the same blue collars that today advocate NAFTA's demise. Both Clinton and Obama know it, and wouldn't dare damaging their country once in office.
As any other trade agreement, NAFTA can be improved. But let there be no doubt that free trade is the only way for countries to realize their full potential and progress on the path to greater development. If Obama bashes free trade so eagerly, let me remind him that were the US to open up their agricultural markets fully and unlimitedly to Kenyan produce his Kenyan kin would enjoy greater demand for their products, bringing greater prosperity to that African country. Without any need for foreign aid out of the taxpayer's pocket, with greater choice and lower prices for American consumers. The public wins, government wonks and lobbies lose.
If this is Bob Shrum's best shot at campaign strategy I'd classify his pay as welfare rather than a wage. Because his strategy isn't worth a dime.
Networking Conference '08
This weekend I attended the Canada Networking Conference in Ottawa, brilliantly organized by the Manning Centre. About 150 delegates gathered to share views and experiences, as well as to hear from the likes of Preston Manning, Tony Clement, Mike Harris, Bernard Lord, Richard Prebble and many other distinguished politicians and members of the public who are involved in shaping public opinion and representing groups or constituencies.
I was particularly impressed by Tony Clement's recalling of his campaign and victory in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka with the smallest majority in the current Canadian House of Commons, a precious 28 votes achieved through tireless campaigning and literally "going the extra mile", often uphill in bad weather.
The healthcare panel discussion included Mike Harris, Quebec's Joanne Marcotte and the Canadian Medical Association President Brian Day, whose presence at our conference will doubtlessly be contested in the coming days. The speakers drew attention to many of the issues affecting Canada's Medicare and the funding system that generates the perverse perception of the patient as a cost rather than a customer. Surprisingly Quebec was singled out as one of the frontrunners in the introduction of greater private care and competition among hospitals. The recent Castonguay report highlights Quebec's desire to experiment with new approaches to tackle the difficulties faced by the province's Medicare.
Saturday saw Mark Textor from Australia and Richard Prebble from New Zealand sharing their political experiences and analyses, the session being aptly titled "Lessons from Down-Under". Prebble's remark about getting rid of agriculture subsidies drew a spontaneous round of applause and the obvious question as to how anyone could have managed to butcher such a sacred cow. Hon. Prebble maintained his humorous style and remarked that since there wasn't a gradual, painless and bloodless way to kill a cow (or something to that effect) they just shot it. If only EU countries could do the same to the CAP!
This was followed by Stephen Taylor's presentation on how blogging and social networking contribute to political activism and by a panel session on campaigning techniques. Unfortunately I was the victim of a post-lunch sleepiness attack half way through the latter and couldn't follow the discussion as closely as I would have loved to.
Former Nova Scotia Premier John Hamm's moving speech about the origins and present situation of democracy in Canada and Preston Manning's closing remarks wrapped up a fantastic two days.
I was delighted to meet fellow Blogging Tories Stephen Taylor, Sara of Choice for Childcare, Steve of Officially Screwed and Roy of Dr Roy's Thoughts. My views on gun ownership and general weapons policy were positively challenged by the Canadian Shooting Sports Association and I also met several Tories from other universities as well as local riding association coordinators. All in all an excellent opportunity to meet new people, learn more about canadian and worldwide conservatism and gain new insight into political activism. I very much look forward to next year's conference on the 13-14th of March 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)