Iranian leaders are reassuring Hamas that it will continue receiving weapons and funds even if Syria strikes a deal with Israel, provided the masked thugs in Gaza do not negotiate with either Israel or the Palestinian Authority.
The article proceeds to examine reactions to Israeli-Syrian negotiations in Teheran, which are generally negative. The flow of weapons to the armed Palestinian faction are set to lose a key transit port, and the ayatollahs are upset.
Unlike the PA, Hamas is an international pariah. The funds ready to be poured into the PA's coffers outnumber Teheran's at least 10:1. What it does show, however, is that Syria isn't as stupid or as butcherous as many portray it to be. Maybe the latest round of talks won't yield much, but it certainly sends a cold shiver down the spines of the Jewish State's avowed enemies.
If there ever wasn't a sufficient case to rally our support behind Israel, now there is a compelling one. Iran's assasin rhetoric isn't just words: they systematically subsidize rockets that kill innocent Israelis. If, God Forbid, appeaser Obama entered the White House he'd better be ready to take the O'Bomba nickname if the time came to defend our only staunch ally in the Middle East.
Sunday, 25 May 2008
Saturday, 24 May 2008
So much for a classless society!
I was prompted to write about this by Crux-Of-The-Matter's post about the classism and deference encountered while in England.
Academics usually lean left, and New Labour with its social engineering schemes can provide a perfect tool for any crazy idea of perfect society to be experimented with the entire British populace as unwitting guinea pigs. The recent outbursts of classism from Newcastle University's Bruce Charlton, however, go against the tide and the wrong way (I wonder how that's possible).
According to Dr Charlton students from working-class backgrounds have inherently lower IQ's than their higher-class counterparts, therefore higher uni intake from more expensive or more prestigious schools is therefore just a natural consequence of meritocracy. Being no believer in affirmative action I am, however, also no believer in social class as a valid defining characteristic of human nature. A factory worker can exhibit more elegance, wit, wisdom and intelligence than a snobbish toff, given the chance. The principle of meritocracy can be made to work without the needs for quota and target tinkering by improving the standards and quality in the education system. Labour on this record have consistently proven themselves as incompetent as on defence policy in the 1980's.
Dr Charlton's comments are not only an indictment of his own narrow-mindedness and snobbery, but of Labour's failure to bring down the notion of class as a caste, as well as the failure to create a public education system that enabled disadvantaged children to succeed through their own efforts and motivation rather than by government-dictated quota mathematics. To sadden it all, Newcastle upon Tyne is a ridiculously Labour area (judging by 2005 election results). For such classism to come from a bastion of New Labour - the champions of a classless society - is truly disheartening.
It's not the class, it's what we do with it that counts.
Academics usually lean left, and New Labour with its social engineering schemes can provide a perfect tool for any crazy idea of perfect society to be experimented with the entire British populace as unwitting guinea pigs. The recent outbursts of classism from Newcastle University's Bruce Charlton, however, go against the tide and the wrong way (I wonder how that's possible).
According to Dr Charlton students from working-class backgrounds have inherently lower IQ's than their higher-class counterparts, therefore higher uni intake from more expensive or more prestigious schools is therefore just a natural consequence of meritocracy. Being no believer in affirmative action I am, however, also no believer in social class as a valid defining characteristic of human nature. A factory worker can exhibit more elegance, wit, wisdom and intelligence than a snobbish toff, given the chance. The principle of meritocracy can be made to work without the needs for quota and target tinkering by improving the standards and quality in the education system. Labour on this record have consistently proven themselves as incompetent as on defence policy in the 1980's.
Dr Charlton's comments are not only an indictment of his own narrow-mindedness and snobbery, but of Labour's failure to bring down the notion of class as a caste, as well as the failure to create a public education system that enabled disadvantaged children to succeed through their own efforts and motivation rather than by government-dictated quota mathematics. To sadden it all, Newcastle upon Tyne is a ridiculously Labour area (judging by 2005 election results). For such classism to come from a bastion of New Labour - the champions of a classless society - is truly disheartening.
It's not the class, it's what we do with it that counts.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
Debunking the Global Peace Index
Compiled by the Economist, the Global Peace Index ranks countries based on 24 indicators of what the panel considers as key contributions to a peaceful society and country as a whole. Canada ranks 11th, with Iceland topping the list, the US close to the 100th place and everyone else in between.
However a mere look at the ranking rings a few alarm bells, which the index's creators do acknowledge. Israel is rock bottom, while brutal regimes such as Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma are higher. Dictatorial Belarus, meddling Syria and human-rights-abuser China are "more peaceful" than the United States. Something is wrong here, these countries in no way can qualify as peaceful nations (most of them) and certainly not as peaceful societies. What went wrong?
The number of police servicemen and jailed population proportion are given the same weighting as non-UN troop deployments, ease of access to weapons (assumingly including sales) and possibility of terrorist attack. Military sophistication is a handicap, as are UN deployments, army size and weapons trade transactions.
All this leaves the indicators of political stability, relationships with others, external and internal conflicts and human rights respect belittled compared to their actual true weight. Furthermore, the human rights indicator is fetched from Amnesty International's yearbook, which implies that being open to scrutiny is not a good thing (Zimbabwe has the same value as Israel on the human rights indicator). Other critics point to the GPI's ignorance of such factors as violence against women. David Suzuki would probably argue that adherence to Global Warming dogma should be included (but seriously, care for the environment is completely ignored).
Healthy free-market trading democracies rarely go to war with one another, a well-trained army and police force with sophisticated equipment can protect the peace of the country and the citizenry, while UN involvement denotes a commitment to international cooperation in hot spots. The GPI seems to promote the idea of a society that has a pre-historic army and police or none at all, does not participate in UN missions, sucks up to Amnesty International and is a general left-wing utopia where 100% of the population votes and is full of young people aged 15-35.
In its current form the Global Peace Index places excessive weight on factors which do not affect a country's peacefulness or functioning as a healthy society, but rather seems to promote a partisan view of how peace is to be achieved. I wouldn't expect anything different from an index endorsed by Jimmy Carter.
My verdict: good attempt. Now tinker with the weightings and factor in the many true indicators of peacefulness that have been missed.
However a mere look at the ranking rings a few alarm bells, which the index's creators do acknowledge. Israel is rock bottom, while brutal regimes such as Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma are higher. Dictatorial Belarus, meddling Syria and human-rights-abuser China are "more peaceful" than the United States. Something is wrong here, these countries in no way can qualify as peaceful nations (most of them) and certainly not as peaceful societies. What went wrong?
The number of police servicemen and jailed population proportion are given the same weighting as non-UN troop deployments, ease of access to weapons (assumingly including sales) and possibility of terrorist attack. Military sophistication is a handicap, as are UN deployments, army size and weapons trade transactions.
All this leaves the indicators of political stability, relationships with others, external and internal conflicts and human rights respect belittled compared to their actual true weight. Furthermore, the human rights indicator is fetched from Amnesty International's yearbook, which implies that being open to scrutiny is not a good thing (Zimbabwe has the same value as Israel on the human rights indicator). Other critics point to the GPI's ignorance of such factors as violence against women. David Suzuki would probably argue that adherence to Global Warming dogma should be included (but seriously, care for the environment is completely ignored).
Healthy free-market trading democracies rarely go to war with one another, a well-trained army and police force with sophisticated equipment can protect the peace of the country and the citizenry, while UN involvement denotes a commitment to international cooperation in hot spots. The GPI seems to promote the idea of a society that has a pre-historic army and police or none at all, does not participate in UN missions, sucks up to Amnesty International and is a general left-wing utopia where 100% of the population votes and is full of young people aged 15-35.
In its current form the Global Peace Index places excessive weight on factors which do not affect a country's peacefulness or functioning as a healthy society, but rather seems to promote a partisan view of how peace is to be achieved. I wouldn't expect anything different from an index endorsed by Jimmy Carter.
My verdict: good attempt. Now tinker with the weightings and factor in the many true indicators of peacefulness that have been missed.
Sunday, 18 May 2008
Privatization still on the move!
The Nigerian oil giant is to be privatized. (AFP). After being a tool in the hands of corrupt bureaucrats and incompetent managers, the country's main oil company is to be restructured, split in five and privatized.
Wrestling such an enormous centre of power away from the hands of politicians is definitely a key toward decreasing corruption in the only country whose credit cards are not an accepted form of payment by the Education Testing Service (SAT, GRE, GMAT, etc) and whose business reputation earned it an IgNobel. In the wake of a landslide victory, the current President seems to have a few good things in nmind to put his country back on the track of economic progress that brings genuine development. Furthermore, the current oil price boom may create a nation of small shareholders with profitable stakes in one of the five companies.
This process is to be watched closely. If the usual habits prevail the privatization will be a sham and the companies will be swallowed back into the bureaucrats' influence area. If, instead, Nigerians actively engage in this sample of popular capitalism they have well deserved they'll ask for more. Nigeria could become another success story. Makes me pray for high oil prices this time round.
Wrestling such an enormous centre of power away from the hands of politicians is definitely a key toward decreasing corruption in the only country whose credit cards are not an accepted form of payment by the Education Testing Service (SAT, GRE, GMAT, etc) and whose business reputation earned it an IgNobel. In the wake of a landslide victory, the current President seems to have a few good things in nmind to put his country back on the track of economic progress that brings genuine development. Furthermore, the current oil price boom may create a nation of small shareholders with profitable stakes in one of the five companies.
This process is to be watched closely. If the usual habits prevail the privatization will be a sham and the companies will be swallowed back into the bureaucrats' influence area. If, instead, Nigerians actively engage in this sample of popular capitalism they have well deserved they'll ask for more. Nigeria could become another success story. Makes me pray for high oil prices this time round.
A carbon tax alternative that smells
Edmonton Journal (via Canada.com) posts a proposal that would allow the government to hit non-efficient use of fuel without necessarily imposing a carbon tax. I happen to agree with the author that setting a low limit on the price of fuel and offsetting the artificial imbalance by cutting other taxes would definitely avoid the stalls in efficiency developments we saw during earlier fuel price hikes.
It still remains, however, a government meddling. Minimum prices are first and foremost against consumers. Good intentions regarding the environment do not justify imposing a system of values upon the defenceless citizen who has to fill up at the pump. Coming from Italy where certain goods have a government-imposed minimum price I fume at such aberrations being exported elsewhere. Expensive fuel encourages user efficiency, while cheap fuel should encourage efficient extraction. With environmental legislation as it is, cutting corners by polluting more to produce gas cheaper isn't an option anymore.
Where does this leave us? A carbon tax is a con which will further endanger the economy. A minimum fuel price, however, will have subtler effects causing the same damage. If the price of fuel never comes down this piece of legislation would be useless (a Liberal specialty). Set the limit too high and the tax cuts in other areas to balance the grab would divert all government money towards compensating Canadians being defrauded at the pump. If the Liberals dare impose such a threshold their pet boondoggles would be starved of tax dollars.
Where does this leave Stephane Dion? In a bind. Persisting in carbon tax advocacy is political suicide, while pulling the plug on the policy will further portray him as a feeble leader. Switching to a minimum price, however, will only make matters worse, for high minimum prices will starve the government of money (or the consumers) and low minimums will be so useless hiding the policy failure would be a challenging task.
It still remains, however, a government meddling. Minimum prices are first and foremost against consumers. Good intentions regarding the environment do not justify imposing a system of values upon the defenceless citizen who has to fill up at the pump. Coming from Italy where certain goods have a government-imposed minimum price I fume at such aberrations being exported elsewhere. Expensive fuel encourages user efficiency, while cheap fuel should encourage efficient extraction. With environmental legislation as it is, cutting corners by polluting more to produce gas cheaper isn't an option anymore.
Where does this leave us? A carbon tax is a con which will further endanger the economy. A minimum fuel price, however, will have subtler effects causing the same damage. If the price of fuel never comes down this piece of legislation would be useless (a Liberal specialty). Set the limit too high and the tax cuts in other areas to balance the grab would divert all government money towards compensating Canadians being defrauded at the pump. If the Liberals dare impose such a threshold their pet boondoggles would be starved of tax dollars.
Where does this leave Stephane Dion? In a bind. Persisting in carbon tax advocacy is political suicide, while pulling the plug on the policy will further portray him as a feeble leader. Switching to a minimum price, however, will only make matters worse, for high minimum prices will starve the government of money (or the consumers) and low minimums will be so useless hiding the policy failure would be a challenging task.
Friday, 16 May 2008
UK Labour PM Gordon Brown voted out
This in from my alma mater's Tory society (UCL Conservatives). Shows how the public doesn't perceive Gordo as their legitimate prime minister.
The info can be retrieved here as well.
The info can be retrieved here as well.
Obam-ology bashed
The good old Times cautions against placing excessive hopes on Barack Obama and bestowing virtues and laud upon him before seeing the goods. I will not lie, I like the guy. The policies he proposes are as sure to miss their targets as American missiles are of missing Bin Laden when there's no US election coming, but he gave the heir presumptive Billary the roughest ride of her life, and maybe the boot out of politics.
In a recent reply on his "Italians" blog, Corriere Della Sera journalist Beppe Severgnini argued that an Obama nomination would ensure the grassroots and "new electorate" he galvanized will come out and vote Democrat in November, while Clinton on the ballot paper would suffice to disillusion them, securing a Republican victory. This is possibly true, and it would be a sad reality. It would indicate an Obama personality cult of sorts, an "Obama or nothing" mentality that would damage the Democrats far beyond the drawn-out nomination race we are witnessing.
Hailed as the breath of fresh air with a bit of anti-establishment feeling, Obama has charmed many to the point that nothing seems to sink his ship. From reverend Wright to Hamas-entangled aides through blue-collar insults, his campaign does not seem to suffer.
This is worrying. He hasn't been the subject of the kind of scrutiny most presidential candidates go through, and hasn't been held to account for his weaknesses as a person aiming for such high office should. He may be inspiring and charming, but I fear for his ego.
The premature sanctification of St Barack of Chicago (or Honolulu if semantics is important) is consistent with the savior ideology many Dem fans adhere to. This kind of thinking is likely to give President Obama a power trip, which can only result in ill-thought measures being rushed through a blue Congress in the wake of popular (or factional) enthusiasm. Hoping for a messiah weakens people's perceptions of their liberties as well, as they entrust the newly-come prophet with any authority he may demand to carry out the promised "Change We Can Be Duped Into".
It would be interesting to investigate how the party that champions civil liberties (but also statism) can be the egg that hatches the biggest threat to American freedoms and Americans' love of them since the Patriot Act. For my part, I'd stay safe with McCain and a weak Democratic majority in one of the Houses.
In a recent reply on his "Italians" blog, Corriere Della Sera journalist Beppe Severgnini argued that an Obama nomination would ensure the grassroots and "new electorate" he galvanized will come out and vote Democrat in November, while Clinton on the ballot paper would suffice to disillusion them, securing a Republican victory. This is possibly true, and it would be a sad reality. It would indicate an Obama personality cult of sorts, an "Obama or nothing" mentality that would damage the Democrats far beyond the drawn-out nomination race we are witnessing.
Hailed as the breath of fresh air with a bit of anti-establishment feeling, Obama has charmed many to the point that nothing seems to sink his ship. From reverend Wright to Hamas-entangled aides through blue-collar insults, his campaign does not seem to suffer.
This is worrying. He hasn't been the subject of the kind of scrutiny most presidential candidates go through, and hasn't been held to account for his weaknesses as a person aiming for such high office should. He may be inspiring and charming, but I fear for his ego.
The premature sanctification of St Barack of Chicago (or Honolulu if semantics is important) is consistent with the savior ideology many Dem fans adhere to. This kind of thinking is likely to give President Obama a power trip, which can only result in ill-thought measures being rushed through a blue Congress in the wake of popular (or factional) enthusiasm. Hoping for a messiah weakens people's perceptions of their liberties as well, as they entrust the newly-come prophet with any authority he may demand to carry out the promised "Change We Can Be Duped Into".
It would be interesting to investigate how the party that champions civil liberties (but also statism) can be the egg that hatches the biggest threat to American freedoms and Americans' love of them since the Patriot Act. For my part, I'd stay safe with McCain and a weak Democratic majority in one of the Houses.
Funding IVF gives greater benefits
Interviewed by the CBC, Dr Jeff Nisker from UWO argues that the costs of funding IVF cycles for couples having trouble conceiving will be offset by the savings in neonatal care resulting from multiple births caused by fertility drugs. Maybe, but there are more benefits.
I am not aware whether Canada funds IVF for couples carrying potentially debilitating genetic diseases, but it definitely should. The cost of the IVF cycle would be offset by the saving in healthcare provision for a condition that could have been avoided without incurring the ethical contradictions of eugenics. No-one wants Huntingdon's, Tay Sachs, Haemophilia or other conditions that can be reliably detected by genetic screening.
As with many ethical issues, IVF cannot be considered a lifestyle choice (I am against using it as a routine procedure). I would, however, advocate the following:
I am not aware whether Canada funds IVF for couples carrying potentially debilitating genetic diseases, but it definitely should. The cost of the IVF cycle would be offset by the saving in healthcare provision for a condition that could have been avoided without incurring the ethical contradictions of eugenics. No-one wants Huntingdon's, Tay Sachs, Haemophilia or other conditions that can be reliably detected by genetic screening.
As with many ethical issues, IVF cannot be considered a lifestyle choice (I am against using it as a routine procedure). I would, however, advocate the following:
- Genetic screening for both parents who want to have a child, in order to check for the possibility of severe genetic disorders being passed on
- IVF and pre-implant screening of the embryo to ensure the baby is healthy for couples identified as at-risk
- Limiting pre-implant test result disclosure solely to the health of the embryo, leaving out any other possible sources of discrimination such as gender
- IVF in all cases of proven difficulty in conceiving
Sex changes before needed care
Ontario is to cover sex change surgery expenses again. Pardon? Other areas of the healthcare system are underfunded, waiting lists for certain kinds of procedures and surgeries (e.g. MRIs) are ridiculous and all the provincial honchos can cook up is spending millions to cover sex change? By all means I'm not against such surgeries, one's body is one's own, but I cannot understand this re-routing of public money to a strictly private matter, to a surgery that is not life-saving nor a true emergency.
Ontario's trustees of government should re-examine their priorities. This isn't care for the people, what the Liberals claim as their bastion. This is healthcare by Publicity and Public Relations. I pass more sensed strategies every morning.
Ontario's trustees of government should re-examine their priorities. This isn't care for the people, what the Liberals claim as their bastion. This is healthcare by Publicity and Public Relations. I pass more sensed strategies every morning.
When the blame hunt goes too far
This would be funny if it wasn't sad: blame the world's problems on fat people. Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine have suggested that obese people are to partly blame both for the global food crisis and global warming, because they need more calories (thus requiring more food) and because they are more likely to use transport, thus causing emissions through private car use or by placing an additional strain on public transportation systems.
I have the highest respect for LSHTM, and some of my friends hold degrees from that respectable institution. However this demonstrates that either their recruitment standards have hit rock bottom or economics and climate aren't their cup of tea.
The association between higher calorie consumption and reduced food supply to the world's poor is as far-fetched as linking global warming to pirates. Taking certain parts of the southern US as a case study, high rates of obesity are caused mainly by high fat content due to frying everything fryable, a legacy of poor food supply that required addition of calories in order to ensure survival. The food "crisis" is due to rising prices of staples such as rice and wheat, not frying oil. Claim dismissed.
Moreover, the influence of agriculture on rising fuel costs is certainly not due to obese people eating unhealthily, as most of the unhealthy diet is processed food rather than crops. If we compare increased agricultural fuel demand to the increased demand in China and India in general, the contribution of increased agricultural production (if any) is negligible. Costs of fuel used to feed obese people are NOT causing higher food prices for the world's poor. Claim dismissed.
The next claim, that obese people cause greater strain on transportation systems, is just as miscalculated as the previous one. Although morbidly obese people might place higher strains on small private cars but not SUVs, the additional weight of several obese people on a BUS is negligible in proportion to the total weight of the bus itself and its average-weighing passengers. If we got obese people off public transport the total carbon savings wouldn't justify such discrimination. Claim dismissed.
Obese people place a strain on healthcare systems, that's the problem. The LSHTM should focus more on helping the world by aiding the fight against diseases such as malaria, cholera, dengue and other ailments that afflict the world's poor.
I have the highest respect for LSHTM, and some of my friends hold degrees from that respectable institution. However this demonstrates that either their recruitment standards have hit rock bottom or economics and climate aren't their cup of tea.
The association between higher calorie consumption and reduced food supply to the world's poor is as far-fetched as linking global warming to pirates. Taking certain parts of the southern US as a case study, high rates of obesity are caused mainly by high fat content due to frying everything fryable, a legacy of poor food supply that required addition of calories in order to ensure survival. The food "crisis" is due to rising prices of staples such as rice and wheat, not frying oil. Claim dismissed.
Moreover, the influence of agriculture on rising fuel costs is certainly not due to obese people eating unhealthily, as most of the unhealthy diet is processed food rather than crops. If we compare increased agricultural fuel demand to the increased demand in China and India in general, the contribution of increased agricultural production (if any) is negligible. Costs of fuel used to feed obese people are NOT causing higher food prices for the world's poor. Claim dismissed.
The next claim, that obese people cause greater strain on transportation systems, is just as miscalculated as the previous one. Although morbidly obese people might place higher strains on small private cars but not SUVs, the additional weight of several obese people on a BUS is negligible in proportion to the total weight of the bus itself and its average-weighing passengers. If we got obese people off public transport the total carbon savings wouldn't justify such discrimination. Claim dismissed.
Obese people place a strain on healthcare systems, that's the problem. The LSHTM should focus more on helping the world by aiding the fight against diseases such as malaria, cholera, dengue and other ailments that afflict the world's poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)