Why we aren't winning yet

After three weeks of vacationing plus a few days of other sadly more important business to sort out, I'd like to offer a honest opinion as to why the Tories have been shown in a poll again in a smaller lead over the Liberals than they truly deserve. Plus, a poll shows the Party at odds with Quebeckers and Ontarians. In a whole month since the beginning of July's poll, hardly anything has changed.

Quebec first. Declaring the Quebecois a nation within Canada and emphasizing their role in a united federation is excellent PR, however I believe more is needed to sway the complex lot that inhabits the east shore of the Ottawa river. Far from advocating more Quebec-focused policies and subsidies to ailing industries, the central government should be helping (or putting pressure on the QC government) those hit by economic change out of their trade by shifting their focus. Facing the facts, with Chinese workforce and Siberian taiga paper and wood will soon all come from Asia. Aiding the forestry sector and papermaking industry isn't a long-term solution. Why not help shift logging to maple cultivation? With Quebec's soon-to-be negotiating autonomy with France overseas demand for our syrup may well increase if the industry plays its cards well. Just a thought.

Ontario inhabits the realm of my ignorance, but McGuinty has been outsmarting Tory and bolstering the image of the red party in the province. As far as I know he holds the initiative of going on a disputable sales trip to Europe and introducing re-training schemes for displaced automotive industry workforce. Trade, competition, investment and labor mobility are typical Conservative battle horses. Where were our troops?

Recently I read an article in the Globe and Mail titled "The Tories' almost forgotten policy". Forgotten allright, and it's our fault entirely.

Without wanting to sound too pretentious or judgmental, the Party's communications strategy is lacking in appeal to those voters who are wholly uninterested in political wrangling. Therefore rubbishing Stephane Dion is not a long-term vote winner but a mere tool for keeping him at bay. Associating the Green Shift policy with the punchbag Liberal leader is also a double-edged sword.

Steve Janke pointed out that the two provinces expected to take the shaft from the Carbon Tax do not elect one Liberal MP save Ralph Goodale. Pandering to voters in those districts would seem a risky if at all worthwhile time and energy investment. On the other hand Ontarians may see higher taxes trickling down to higher prices at the pump, but the Liberal typical promise of more social programs and dish-outs can outweigh this concern.

So we all get shafted one way or the other, but for the proposing leader two provinces are hopeless and eight may be persuaded to risk income redistribution. Simplistic as it may sound, Dion's gambling with the odds in his favor. Compounded with widespread inbuilt social distaste for the oil industry and its profits, the Green Shaft touches a sensitive nerve in many Canadians' minds.

What can the Party do to send the GS to the rubbish bin? Step one is achieved: discreditation by association. But it isn't enough. The Tories must offer a viable alternative that would ensure both emission reduction and that the money redistributed by an eventual economic adjustment do travel out of oil companies' wallets into those of other Canadians.

Despite a company's only purpose being a profit, a government's duty is to promote investment and growth, especially in times of economic duress. Therefore instead of further reducing the GST the current Government should encourage inter-province investment. Alberta is raking in huge profits with the current oil prices, while Ontario motor industry is in a slump and British Columbians are shafted with the provincial carbon tax.

Tax credits for profits re-routed to viable investment in other provinces could help hammer out a new message:

Liberal Ontario/BC waste and tax, Tory Alberta/SK invest and enrich.

It's time to cut out the wrangling and show Canadians we can not just out-fundraise and out-campaign, but out-smart, out-initiative and out-policy the Liberals as well.

Canada Day 2008 impressions

My very first Canada Day celebrations were nothing short of mesmerizing. A combination of perfect weather, perfect company, perfect buzz and a marvelous bash on Parliament Hill helped carve yesterday into my memory as one of the happiest days ever. Despite not being a Canadian myself, I felt once more proud to live in this country and share its indomitable spirit and intrinsic joy of being. Proud to be a wannabe so to say.

Thank you Ottawa and everyone who turned up for making it so great!

I surely admire the efforts of those who will have to clean up the town in the coming hours though.

The case for intervention

Often opinions we agree with come from the most unexpected politicians. Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democrats, puts forward an interesting case for developing and implementing the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, citing Burma and Zimbabwe as examples. His credo is as follows:

He said there should be strict rules governing military interventions - that it be based on a just cause, have the right intention, always be a last resort, sanctioned by a legitimate authority, be "proportional" and "must have a reasonable chance of success".

The concept of fixing a situation that has been deliberately left to degenerate, or has been wilfully created by a psychotic government is surely appealing to all those apalled by the plight of the Burmese, the Zimbabweans and other nations struggling with heartless rulers. However, one must tread carefully or we'll end up with the usual Lib-Dem inapplicable mishmash.

R2P, as it is conventionally referred to, has rarely been applied in practice because it is quite vague in its definition. Furthermore, the case for intervention rests on several assumptions:

1. We can discern just causes
2. Intentions actually count
3. We kno when we've reached the last limit
4. The UN is qualified (or able to) decide on the matter
5. Interventions won't be botched up.

Abstract notions of limit, intention and just cause aside, the United Nations is in no position to deliver any judgement on any matter requiring what one could colloquially define virile attributes; the cross-vetoes and internal lobbying by countries of dubious reputation are a recipe for inaction.

In my opinion, the case for intervention in another country's affairs is an extreme action and is to be carried out with preision and minimal invasion. The situation must be the consequence of direct actions of a governing group first. If we can identify who's giving the orders, we know which tumor to cut out. Secondly, there must be a solid societal basis (i.e. a working democratic/ruling process) that would re-build a governing structure should the current one be decapitated. Thirdly, no destruction should be involved save for the essential.

Therefore, unlike Mr Clegg, I believe there is a strong case to intervene in Zimbabwe by decapitating the very senior tiers of government, Zanu PF party, army, secret services and the police. Lack of regional support is a handicap but not an obstacle, as a stucture for replacing the brutes is in place and the gears are somewhat oiled. It needs be a surgical come-and-go, not a full-scale invasion with live footage, marches and fanfares.

If we want to develop R2P, we should shift its focus to the following questions:

1. Can we pinpoint the cause of the negligence/brutality? Is it brutality or lingering tribal conflict?
   
2. Is there a social and political infrastructure to avoid a power vacuum?
3. Is there a credible alternative leadership supported by the majority of the population?
4. Is there a genuine desire among the country's nationals to be free from brutality (not necessarily the ruling party?)
5. Can the intervention avoid civilian suffering and general destruction?

These questions answered, the case for Zimbabwe and Burma is clear.

Taylor's wrong, but still gets gong

The award of the so-called "Japanese Nobel" to Charles Taylor, as well as his other countless Canadian and Quebecois gongs, leaves a bittersweet aftertaste. His work is of exceptional quality both in terms of eloquence and scholarity, and he surely is a principal source of inspiration for many policymakers. He is also owed great credit for putting up with months of drivel from his fellow Quebecois jabbering nonsense on immigration and religion and actually milking something sensical out of it. Furthermore, being closely associated with McGill, Mr Taylor brings this award very close to home.

However we should take a look beyond the scholarity and dive into the case studies we can find. Without going too far, the very same multiculturalism we see in Canada and its dreadful British inspiration are heading straight to the dustbin of history or, failing that, to ignominy. Although an excellent philosophical approach in theory, in practice multiculturalism becomes synonymous with chaos, anarchy and discord. Its very approach to human relations is flawed because it defines an individual based on the culture and heritage.

Without being wrong, it isn't right either. We are what we grow up to be, defined in indeed great part by what made us the people we are today. The State and public policy, however, do not EVER enter the picture: their concern is solely the orderly administration of affairs delegated to them by a free and independent society. Multiculturalism strives to give the State an unfairly large role in determining community relations. As a libertarian in many areas, I believe that when the State intervenes it does so badly, at the wrong time and with the wrong tools.

Taylor's philosophy is impractical from a policy perspective and morally wrong. The state is a trustee of the country, not its mother. Leave our heritages alone, let us sort out our own relations with one another and don't try finding a universal formula for running a country with different cultures in it. Somehow academics just can't trust people to get along with each other without being told to do so.

"By advocating 'communitarianism' and 'multiculturalism' from the perspective of 'holistic individualism,' Dr. Taylor has developed an enlightened philosophy that allows people of different historical, traditional and cultural backgrounds to retain their multiple identities while living together peacefully," the foundation said.

There isn't an -ism they haven't tried yet.

Mugabe stripped of honorary degree

The University of Massachussets rescinded the 1988 award, on the grounds that

“In the two decades that have passed since the honorary degree was awarded, Robert Mugabe has pursued policies and taken actions that are antithetical to the values and beliefs of the University of Massachusetts,” President Wilson said. “I must recommend that we sever the connection that was formed when Robert Mugabe appeared to be a force for positive change in Africa. Today, that promise no longer exists.”

Earlier this year I remarked that Mugabe will not go peacefully as the outcome of the election got clearer. My fears have sadly materialized, with brutality escalating and the bloodthirsty monster still in the top seat. And we are just as powerless. Where's the United Nations and its eagerness to defend human rights now?

Ireland saves Europe, votes "NO"

Ireland's popular NO to the backdoor EU constitution plunges the European Union back into a crisis, the same constitutional gridlock it experienced after the French and Dutch rejected the original 500+ page legalese leviathan. What are the implications?

Having realized citizens' inherent opposition to the direction the EU is going (more regulation, more bureaucracy, less accountability, less common sense) twenty-six governments decided to bypass their people and ratify the Lisbon Treaty through parliaments. Nothing wrong there, except that the EU is made BY governments FOR governments, and on issues of continental integration the 300 million Europeans deserve to vote independently of whoever runs their countries at this time.

I'm a fervent advocate of European integration and continentalism, but the EU went from a maker of freedom to a ball-and-chain at the foot of progress. Compulsory agricultural quotas, compulsory levels of consumer taxation and spurious regulations have alienated the very founders of the Union. That the original NO came from two of the Union's founding fathers should have rung a loud alarm bell.

The original constitution and the now-defunct treaty were the product of statism, the desire to create a super-state that would choke national sovereignty. The abject failure to obtain popular approval for the new order is before our very eyes. Brussels overpaid lazy meddling elites have been dealt another severe blow, and now there's no plan B.

The Union is in stalemate, as the changes supposed to correct for expansion (to make the Union governable) failed to take effect. It is a clear indictment of Government By Fait-Accompli. The roots of this debacle should be sought in the pervasive Brussels attitude of not caring for the citizen the least, promoting instead a culture of assistance and horse-trading (farm subsidies, anyone?). Irish voters saved millions of Europeans from a top-down diktat, and I believe the continent owes the Emerald Isle a big favour.

“Call it hubris,” said one senior figure, “people seem to have forgotten what Ireland was like before we received European funding. They seem to think that we created our success all by ourselves. They are wrong.”

Thinking one could buy loyalty with Brussels money is exactly what made the referendum fail. The EU is out of touch, choked in red tape, anti-citizen, cynical and outright on the wrong track. It deserves every drubbing it has received recently, and deserves more until it is hammered down into a sober realization that it is, indeed, in need of a good trim of power, money and ego.

How to kill our enjoyment

Laughable alcohol policy reported by the CBC. According to Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, taxing alcohol more and toughening drinking-age legislation will somehow reduce alcohol abuse and reduce healthcare costs associated with it.

What the Centre fails to realize is that we're dealing with the cost of abuse, not ordinary use like yours or mine. Therefore hitting normal law-abiding and commonsensical drinkers will not solve the problem and will definitely not help reduce healthcare costs. Why?

A higher tax on alcohol will mean certain risk categories (such as poorer individuals) will not be able to afford quality, controlled alcoholic drinks and will likely resort to homemade moonshine. The health costs associated with treating moonshine intoxication is much higher, especially if it destroys the liver causing a chronic condition. Had the person bought cheaper vodka at the LCBO or the SAQ this could have been averted.

Increasing the drinking age to 21 will affect both business and healthcare. Firstly it will drive away all the under-21 drinkers who cross the border from the US into Canada to have a good pint and party in peace, thus harming business. Secondly, it will spur a growth in alcohol abuse within private confines (eg fraternities and house parties), ergo outside of the reach of police and society. Aside from being a more dangerous and non-monitorable abuse, it could also act as a catalyst for irresponsible sexual behavior, brawls and general misdemanor. Healthcare costs associated with THAT would be sky-high.

Good proposals include policing drunken behavior, getting tough on drunk-driving and especially under-21 DUI, as well as counselling for problem drinkers. All this is compatible with tackling the problem of abuse.

Stalin himself is reputed to have said Russians need good cheap vodka and good cheap wine to eradicate the plague of homemade alcohol poisoning. Advocating against privatization as the Centre's report does is unreasonable. Firstly it keeps prices high, cutting the poorest off a supply of safe alcohol. Secondly, it keeps behemothic and inefficient monopolies alive. Thirdly, it completely denies the virtue of a taste in spirits. When you look at alcohol just in terms of its boozing potential you deny everyone the chance to appreciate the beauties and enjoyment of high-quality liquors enjoyed responsibly.

I would never chug a Matusalem or a Brugal. Polar vodka, instead, is so disgusting I can't wait for the bottle to be done with. Guess which one the SAQ carries and promotes.

Trubunalize this!

Chasing the whims of frustrated losers through hearing basis-less cases and covering Canada with ridicule distracts the do-it-yourself courts we know as HRCs from their real job: ridding the country of unfairness. A striking example of this is the recent difficulties faced by a blind house-hunter in BC, the very same BC hosting the sham trial against Mark Steyn and Macleans.

Although renting is completely at the discretion of the landlord (there's no human right to be a tenant), the case of Kim Hood is possibly an indictment of the current running of the Human Rights tribunals. Surely she is being discriminated against, and I for one would love to see her rights upheld. However, an HRC would find itself in a bind. Either, as these commissions do, they pluck a human right out of their backsides and all but abolish private property (by destroying your right to choose whom to let to) or they rule in favour of the landlord and wipe off any remaining credibility they have as custodians of our rights and freedoms (were they ever?).

There is a third solution: rent by attorney, i.e. using someone else who's legally registered to house-hunt for you. This would eliminate the guide dog as ground for rejection because there's no dog in the first place, and it wouldn't qualify as a pet. If there isn't a law for this the Commission would recommend it to the provincial legislature. As of now, this isn't a possibility as far as I know.

The HRCs should not draw rights and interpretations out of a hat or consider themselves courts. I would suggest their scope be changed to arbitration: less clamor, less legal fees, no precedent, more common sense. A possible solution would include capping maximum sanctions if both parties agree not to appeal the arbiter's decision in the normal courts of law.

Actually, why bother with legal ways at all? Instead of claiming a human right to attend a school grad ball, a Muslim student and observant family will attend because independently of her a group of students began a petition to ban alcohol at the event, and received almost every attendee signature. Persuasion, dialogue and common sense sometimes are the best way to achieve a peaceful society. Crying "Wolf", guilt trips and using backdoors do not do the cause of moderate Islam any good whatsoever.

UN made a tool again

By Mugabe for attending an international food summit.

The irony of the situation is doubled when we consider that not only Mugabe is exploiting a loophole that allows him to travel anywhere in the world, but he is also attending a summit where his contribution is certain to be nil. He is, however, almost certain to contribute to the Rome economy by spending lavishly in the local fashion stores, as the Telegraph reminds us he did at an earlier UN trip.

The butcherous nature of Mugabe's tyranny has been highlighted repeatedly in the past months, particularly after he nearly lost a dramatically rigged ballot (that takes some effort). What stands out, however, is the role of the United Nations as both a laughing stock and a tool. First they allow the election of Zimbabwe to chair the Commission for Sustainable Development, along with Lybia getting a top human rights portfolio. Then, while the world starves, the FAO head office staff in Rome are possibly the highest-paid UN employees and the UN HQ in New York get a billion-dollar makeover. The UNIFIL force in Lebanon comes under fire both physically and politically, meanwhile a scandal erupts around peacekeepers abusing children in areas of deployment.

Combined with the Oil for Food sleaze, the Iraq war fiasco, the stalemate over Darfur and the IAEA's apparent backtracking on Iran's nuclear innocence we have to seriously ask ourselves the question of what exactly is wrong with the UN and whether it's time to pull the plug on geography-based arrangements, such as rotating commission chairs by continent (which allowed African nations to nominate Zimbabwe). Certain aspects of UN running trascend the ridiculous, such as headquartering the FAO in a country best described as flooded with food.

The UN was founded on the noble principle of resolving disputes by diplomacy and on the naive assumption that everyone wanted to do just that. The naivete was compounded by the consensus system among the Security Council's big five, which ensured nothing meaningful could be done quickly. The organization has taken in all sorts of members without holding them accountable for their actions, resulting in democratic and well-intentioned members being on the same standing with (and being abused with impunity by) the most rogue regimes this planet has ever seen. Seen from this angle the disproportionate representation microstates get is definitely the UN's smallest of problems.

As it is now the UN is just a talking shop of cyclopic proportions that can sometimes display a few teeth. No benchmark of good governance or respect for human rights is enforced for admission and continued membership, giving butchers free rein. Money from the greatest donors is wasted while draconian principles govern the day-to-day running of the behemoth.

Seeing that reform is slow and laborious, we should first and foremost show the UN its place, which is NOT the top of the heap, focusing instead on more close-knit and efficient organizations at the regional level such as NATO. Secondly, the organization must be made accountable for its expenditures, because in its present state it certainly doesn't deliver value for money. Thirdly, the UN must focus on maintaining good standards within its ranks, giving miscreant nations a good spanking or ejecting them altogether (the list is long).

Overall, however, the UN is a living testimony of the failure of governments to act for the good of mankind. Rarely can good outcomes originate from a hen-house full of roosters fighting over their small territory and petty interests. Whatever the charter may claim, governments out of touch with their own populace assembled under a large roof form an assembly that's out-of-touch with the entire world.

Perhaps the extra-territoriality of the UN HQ is ironically the best way to describe the organization: they're out of this world and don't know what to do about it.

Why economics is the answer

And why Stephane Dion should consider a similar approach to priority-making.

The Copenhagen Consensus, far from jumping on bandwagons and joining senseless scaremongering tactics, groups several prominent economists in order to determine global priorities. The peculiarity of this exercise is the focus on the economics of intervention, rather than other considerations. Cost-benefit analysis may sound insensitive, but it does yield a very commonsensical priority list. They're back, for CC2008.

The outcome of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus can be found here. This year's topics are Disease, Water & Sanitation, Education, Women & Development, Global Warming, Air Pollution, Malnutrition, Trade Barriers, Conflicts and Terrorism. You can make your own ranking on the Times website.

What's so special about the Copenhagen Consensus? Its 2004 ranking sent the Kyoto accord rock bottom in the priority list, dismissing current climate change strategies as too costly for no benefit, whereas tackling diseases, malnutrition and trade barriers monopolized the top five. It is a politically unbiased recommendation for enhancing development while minimizing the costs associated with it. Rather than feeding dreams and delusions, the Consensus crunches numbers, which are less opinable than the IPCC's scaremongering.

The Times presents some of the criticism aimed at the Consensus:

Further criticism has been directed at the merit of considering these issues purely in terms of cost and benefit. Factors such as social justice, ecological stewardship and political acceptability are also important, but are exceptionally difficult to price.

These factors are also highly irrelevant. The best social justice is not dying of an avoidable disease and having food on your table, not being arrested for no reason and being free from the threat of conflict. Political acceptability, instead, relies on appeasing lobbies which currently set public policy, such as the farm subsidy and CAP lobby. Money speaks louder than politics, thus cold hard data from the Copenhagen Consensus is more likely to ring the right bells in the heads of policymakers than half-baked political arguments that stand no chance against the lobby powers.

Dion should get a bunch of Canadian economists together and let them set his priorities. Maybe then he wouldn't be committing the Carbon Tax political suicide.

Further reading:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com