I frequently show little or no patriotism in railing against the failings of my own country, Italy, to live up to the standard of a civilized Western democracy. But at the same time I absolutely adore Italians in their ability to look at almost everything with humor and cynicism. Like Berlusconi's divorce and the accusations he secretly mingles around underage girls (rubbish).
Two particular details made Berlusconi's wife - Veronica Lario - boil over. Firstly, her husband never attended his own children's 18th birthday celebrations despite being invited. Secondly the girl in question - stunner Noemi Letizia - is in the habit of calling him "daddy" (papi) and has seen him often with the family and without. Maybe Berlusconi watched "House of Cards" and took it too literally.
Photos of the girl's lavish 18th birthday party have been posted on the internet, and speculation is rife about their authenticity. True to Italian irony, creativity and humoristic prowess the tech-savvy drew their Photoshop weaponry and one guy decided to give them an expressive space.
The result is "Brinda con Papi", or "Toast with Daddy". From Don Vito Corleone to Chewbacca via the Pope, Chairman Mao and Homer Simpson, everyone can toast with Daddy-Berlusconi.
If we couldn't laugh about it, we'd have to cry.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Tough choices for Gordon Brown
Rocky times for Gordon Brown. His Government lost a vote on Gurkha residency to a Liberal Democrat motion, the MP expenses reform proposals had to be watered down awaiting independent review and half of his MPs are now ready to rebel over plans to sell off a stake of Royal Mail.
The Labour Party has steadily drifted to the left, as was evident years ago with the Trident renewal debate. On that occasion the Government was saved by the Tories voting aye and trumping 88 Labour rebels. Today we see a punitive Budget disenfranchising successful entrepreneurs, consultants and other high earners, smashing the trading gates of the country, and plunging the country into debt.
And despite deputy leader Harriet Harman denying she's vying for Labour leadership (God save us), there is speculation from Times columnist Rachel Sylvester that the party's moderates may see their patience snap. It would definitely help Labour's prospects in the next election.
Looking back at 12 years of Labour rule, we can hardly deny that many policies clearly haven't worked. Top-down management of the NHS has undermined one of the rare examples of good public sector health care, top-down targets in education have driven standards into the pit, solutions to growing youth crime are a farce, immigration is a joke, multiculturalism has failed, the pension fund is bust and the working class is still as miserable as ever. What Gordon Brown proposes is more debt, more taxation and more government.
Labour needs to find a new sense of direction to counter the rising Tories. The false security of leftist politics will eventually kill off Labour, probably prompting defections to the Liberal Democrats among the electorate and even, as rumored, among Labour MPs. Whether or not defections actually happen, the Party is fatigued. Twelve years in government and the failure of their policies have taken their toll: those who should lead can't envision a future anymore.
A moderate takeover of Labour is absolutely necessary. David Cameron will have to contend with a party caucus that's veering to the right should he win the next election in a landslide. Caught between the hammer of an intransigent back bench and the anvil of a leftist Labour, Cameron's number 10 tenure may be very short. And then the country would plunge into a battle between extremes where the golden middle ground of fiscal responsibility and personal liberty will be lost for a long time.
Brown has given himself an additional year as PM (conventionally the general election would have been today) as Parliament isn't due to expire until June 2010. Within this next year he has to either grow cojones and break with the leftists or succumb to Peter Mandelson.
The Labour Party has steadily drifted to the left, as was evident years ago with the Trident renewal debate. On that occasion the Government was saved by the Tories voting aye and trumping 88 Labour rebels. Today we see a punitive Budget disenfranchising successful entrepreneurs, consultants and other high earners, smashing the trading gates of the country, and plunging the country into debt.
And despite deputy leader Harriet Harman denying she's vying for Labour leadership (God save us), there is speculation from Times columnist Rachel Sylvester that the party's moderates may see their patience snap. It would definitely help Labour's prospects in the next election.
Looking back at 12 years of Labour rule, we can hardly deny that many policies clearly haven't worked. Top-down management of the NHS has undermined one of the rare examples of good public sector health care, top-down targets in education have driven standards into the pit, solutions to growing youth crime are a farce, immigration is a joke, multiculturalism has failed, the pension fund is bust and the working class is still as miserable as ever. What Gordon Brown proposes is more debt, more taxation and more government.
Labour needs to find a new sense of direction to counter the rising Tories. The false security of leftist politics will eventually kill off Labour, probably prompting defections to the Liberal Democrats among the electorate and even, as rumored, among Labour MPs. Whether or not defections actually happen, the Party is fatigued. Twelve years in government and the failure of their policies have taken their toll: those who should lead can't envision a future anymore.
A moderate takeover of Labour is absolutely necessary. David Cameron will have to contend with a party caucus that's veering to the right should he win the next election in a landslide. Caught between the hammer of an intransigent back bench and the anvil of a leftist Labour, Cameron's number 10 tenure may be very short. And then the country would plunge into a battle between extremes where the golden middle ground of fiscal responsibility and personal liberty will be lost for a long time.
Brown has given himself an additional year as PM (conventionally the general election would have been today) as Parliament isn't due to expire until June 2010. Within this next year he has to either grow cojones and break with the leftists or succumb to Peter Mandelson.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Take extra care and brace for impact
The WHO confirms 91 cases in the US, with five hospitalizations. Hospitalization rates are therefore constant so far (about 1 in 20). Data from Mexico is mostly stagnant and contradictory (labs aren't working fast enough probably). Confirmed case mortality is 4.35%, which is REALLY BAD.
It seems that the virus is spreading steadily. The alarm started more than two days ago, so despite many people taking precautions (one would assume) they still get it. WHO are right in upping their alert level, and level 6 (maximum) is fairly appropriate. The disease is in three North American countries and has spread to two other WHO regions already.
As laboratory tests make more sense of the data from Mexico (remember: Influenza B is still in season) we should get a clearer picture of how sustainably the virus spreads and who is affected most. Cytokine storms seem to not be confirmed yet, particularly in the out-of-Mexico patients, and in the next few days we should have the answer as to whether or not this virus indeed kills those with healthy immune systems.
Let's wait for solid data about the spread to those who haven't been to Mexico or in close contact with a recent traveler, it should hint more clearly as to how virulent this nasty is. Meanwhile, it seems we're in for a very bumpy ride so don't take flu symptoms lightly.
It seems that the virus is spreading steadily. The alarm started more than two days ago, so despite many people taking precautions (one would assume) they still get it. WHO are right in upping their alert level, and level 6 (maximum) is fairly appropriate. The disease is in three North American countries and has spread to two other WHO regions already.
As laboratory tests make more sense of the data from Mexico (remember: Influenza B is still in season) we should get a clearer picture of how sustainably the virus spreads and who is affected most. Cytokine storms seem to not be confirmed yet, particularly in the out-of-Mexico patients, and in the next few days we should have the answer as to whether or not this virus indeed kills those with healthy immune systems.
Let's wait for solid data about the spread to those who haven't been to Mexico or in close contact with a recent traveler, it should hint more clearly as to how virulent this nasty is. Meanwhile, it seems we're in for a very bumpy ride so don't take flu symptoms lightly.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
NOT a pandemic yet
Swine flu is sweeping the news, but this is not a desperate situation yet. The WHO alert level is 3 out of possible 6, with 1 and 2 being almost complete absence of viruses. Quoting from the WHO website (emphasis mine):
If the virus has maintained its H1N1 characteristics like in 1918, it should cause a cytokine storm, which is an immune system over-reaction. The new strain of swine flu appears to strike young adults indeed, but as Tara Smith, a medically cognizant blogger puts it:
Is this the deadly pandemic we've been overdue for? Looks like it isn't: many people don't even need hospitalization. WHO update of today states (emphasis mine):
So here's the deal: we have a new virus that has reassorted in pigs allowing pig-human transmission and probably combined with a mild flu virus in a human body through simultaneous infection. If it were a pandemic-grade virus Mexico would be sneezing in unison by now.
Therefore take extra care, wash your hands a lot and, if it comes to Canada, be prepared to have a bumpy ride on the flu trolley, as you won't be immune. It doesn't look like the grim reaper at all.
In Phase 3, an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus has caused sporadic cases or small clusters of disease in people, but has not resulted in human-to-human transmission sufficient to sustain community-level outbreaks. Limited human-to-human transmission may occur under some circumstances, for example, when there is close contact between an infected person and an unprotected caregiver. However, limited transmission under such restricted circumstances does not indicate that the virus has gained the level of transmissibility among humans necessary to cause a pandemic.
If the virus has maintained its H1N1 characteristics like in 1918, it should cause a cytokine storm, which is an immune system over-reaction. The new strain of swine flu appears to strike young adults indeed, but as Tara Smith, a medically cognizant blogger puts it:
the data from Mexico (from media reports, at least) are sparse, and only a handful of cases have been confirmed to be caused by the novel swine flu virus. This makes attempts to extrapolate to any larger trends a risky and imprecise endeavor, and the old adage certainly applies: garbage in, garbage out. So right now (again, from media-reported data), we don't know for sure that there really is a higher number of "young and healthy" dying from this virus than we would expect to see--so whether this trend even exists is a big question mark.
Is this the deadly pandemic we've been overdue for? Looks like it isn't: many people don't even need hospitalization. WHO update of today states (emphasis mine):
As of 26 April 2009, the United States Government has reported 20 laboratory confirmed human cases of swine influenza A/H1N1 (8 in New York, 7 in California, 2 in Texas, 2 in Kansas and 1 in Ohio). All 20 cases have had mild Influenza-Like Illness with only one requiring brief hospitalization. No deaths have been reported. All 20 viruses have the same genetic pattern based on preliminary testing. The virus is being described as a new subtype of A/H1N1 not previously detected in swine or humans.
So here's the deal: we have a new virus that has reassorted in pigs allowing pig-human transmission and probably combined with a mild flu virus in a human body through simultaneous infection. If it were a pandemic-grade virus Mexico would be sneezing in unison by now.
Therefore take extra care, wash your hands a lot and, if it comes to Canada, be prepared to have a bumpy ride on the flu trolley, as you won't be immune. It doesn't look like the grim reaper at all.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Why Brits should invest in Canada
The British financial world is in shock after yesterday's Budget, which hikes all taxes and creates yet another tax bracket of 50%. If you earn more than GBP 150k annually (CAD 300k or thereabouts) half of that will go to Gordon Brown. Then you'll pay enormous council tax (on your flat or house), 17% sales tax, GBP 180 for a TV license, et cetera.
150k earners are not low-skilled labor who are employed by manufacturing industries. They are, for instance, managers or financial sector employees. Managers can simply pack it in while financial services can be delivered from your laptop whether you are in a City office or on a Grand Cayman beach. I think you can see where this is going.
Nobody in their right mind will pay 50% of their income off as tax. Alistair Darling has just signed a death sentence for British economic recovery. Canadian tax on that bracket is approximately 29% and Investor/Entrepreneur immigration streams are wide open.
The Investor stream requires one to make a CAD 400k investment (managed by CIC) that will be repaid without interest five years later. Assuming a 5% annual return the gross cost of immigrating to Canada is CAD 110k, or 22k annually. British taxes would have take that from you in two months. Without knowing it, Alistair Darling might just have delivered a massive stimulus to the Canadian economy.
150k earners are not low-skilled labor who are employed by manufacturing industries. They are, for instance, managers or financial sector employees. Managers can simply pack it in while financial services can be delivered from your laptop whether you are in a City office or on a Grand Cayman beach. I think you can see where this is going.
Nobody in their right mind will pay 50% of their income off as tax. Alistair Darling has just signed a death sentence for British economic recovery. Canadian tax on that bracket is approximately 29% and Investor/Entrepreneur immigration streams are wide open.
The Investor stream requires one to make a CAD 400k investment (managed by CIC) that will be repaid without interest five years later. Assuming a 5% annual return the gross cost of immigrating to Canada is CAD 110k, or 22k annually. British taxes would have take that from you in two months. Without knowing it, Alistair Darling might just have delivered a massive stimulus to the Canadian economy.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
What a stupid reason to squabble!
I hardly followed the Mulroney CPC membership story, mainly because it's irrelevant. No really, it is as important an issue for Canada as what I had for breakfast. If Harper's team leaked that in order to show distancing between the current and former PMs, it was monumentally stupid.
Of all the things to leak, it would have been the most irrelevant. Among the media flotsam this is the one piece of debris one is best advised to see float past. How hard can it be?
Naturally, a lapsed membership from your own party's former leader is a clear expression of discontent. The correct way to handle it would have been a quiet phone call, an exchange of opinions and a ready reply for the media when the story eventually broke. I doubt Mulroney is upset because his party won't stand rock-solid behind him and do everything to avoid him facing an inquiry. I would, however, be upset myself were I treated by my former supporters as Mulroney has been.
With the touch, class and subtlety of a sledgehammer Harper ordered ties cut with Mulroney. Then the party refused to say whether Mulroney was a member or not. Now, with party squabbles and cover-up attempts in the open, some expect Harper to put some stick about and make some disagreeing heads roll. If I got that right, this is madness.
Harper should have advised his own, in the interest of fairness, to avoid making strong statements either supporting or condemning Mulroney, hinting that the inquiry wouldn't be put pressure on in any way and Mulroney would have to prove his innocence. That would've shown distancing without excommunication. Then, when news of the membership broke out, Harper should have revealed Mulroney's membership status, called up the former PM and, worst come to worst, admit to the disagreements and brush off further questions with some witticism.
Today the Prime Minister should be furious at the leaks (obviously), admit that the matter has gone too far, say whether Mulroney's membership is still valid, recognize his cock-up and tell the press he had a phone conversation with Mulroney where they overcame disagreements and got back on good terms. He's obviously done that, hasn't he?
Arguments happen and they are not solved by denial and hatchet. For Christ's sake!
Of all the things to leak, it would have been the most irrelevant. Among the media flotsam this is the one piece of debris one is best advised to see float past. How hard can it be?
Naturally, a lapsed membership from your own party's former leader is a clear expression of discontent. The correct way to handle it would have been a quiet phone call, an exchange of opinions and a ready reply for the media when the story eventually broke. I doubt Mulroney is upset because his party won't stand rock-solid behind him and do everything to avoid him facing an inquiry. I would, however, be upset myself were I treated by my former supporters as Mulroney has been.
With the touch, class and subtlety of a sledgehammer Harper ordered ties cut with Mulroney. Then the party refused to say whether Mulroney was a member or not. Now, with party squabbles and cover-up attempts in the open, some expect Harper to put some stick about and make some disagreeing heads roll. If I got that right, this is madness.
Harper should have advised his own, in the interest of fairness, to avoid making strong statements either supporting or condemning Mulroney, hinting that the inquiry wouldn't be put pressure on in any way and Mulroney would have to prove his innocence. That would've shown distancing without excommunication. Then, when news of the membership broke out, Harper should have revealed Mulroney's membership status, called up the former PM and, worst come to worst, admit to the disagreements and brush off further questions with some witticism.
Today the Prime Minister should be furious at the leaks (obviously), admit that the matter has gone too far, say whether Mulroney's membership is still valid, recognize his cock-up and tell the press he had a phone conversation with Mulroney where they overcame disagreements and got back on good terms. He's obviously done that, hasn't he?
Arguments happen and they are not solved by denial and hatchet. For Christ's sake!
Monday, 20 April 2009
Absur-ban 2
Several E.U. delegations walk out of the Durban II conference because the Iranian President spewed antisemitism from the podium, he later accuses Israel of being a "racist" government while being on the receiving end of the same charge from protesters dressed as clowns. If that isn't a circus, I don't know what is.
Why go through the trouble of attending and walking out? Every government knew Durban 2 would be an Israel bash-fest, a conference on racism though anything but "anti". Delusional France evidently hoped the muddle of Middle-Eastern theocracies, African dictatorships and world rejects would suddenly have a mass epiphany. In the same fashion of the Maginot line unwarranted French flights of fancy again crash with a loud thud to the sound of thunderous ridicule.
Little do Ban Ki Moon's attempt at conciliation achieve. His performance at the conference should be the UN's swan song, as an organization hijacked through its own weaknesses and delusions. When you let powers extraneous to your principles become majority in your own organs, don't be surprised when your best members desert you.
So let Ban Ki Moon keep his Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad,Chavez and Bashir. We have the G8, and that suffices. Wouldn't hurt kicking Russia out of it, either.
Update: Dr Roy is on the same wavelength, wondering why EU delegations attended in the first place
Why go through the trouble of attending and walking out? Every government knew Durban 2 would be an Israel bash-fest, a conference on racism though anything but "anti". Delusional France evidently hoped the muddle of Middle-Eastern theocracies, African dictatorships and world rejects would suddenly have a mass epiphany. In the same fashion of the Maginot line unwarranted French flights of fancy again crash with a loud thud to the sound of thunderous ridicule.
Little do Ban Ki Moon's attempt at conciliation achieve. His performance at the conference should be the UN's swan song, as an organization hijacked through its own weaknesses and delusions. When you let powers extraneous to your principles become majority in your own organs, don't be surprised when your best members desert you.
So let Ban Ki Moon keep his Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad,Chavez and Bashir. We have the G8, and that suffices. Wouldn't hurt kicking Russia out of it, either.
Update: Dr Roy is on the same wavelength, wondering why EU delegations attended in the first place
Sunday, 19 April 2009
What game is Iran playing?
After Roxana Saberi was found guilty of espionage by an Iranian court, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself calls for a fair appeal hearing, allowing Saberi to mount a full defence. Something is fishy.
If the Iranian President wanted a truly fair trial of the reporter, he would have invoked fairness right from the beginning of proceedings. An Obama administration would be incapable of reacting strongly to her sentencing, and Iran could have continued on its path of oppression and international disgrace. Why this politically unwarranted sudden turn?
Bloomberg suggests Iran may wish to reverse Saberi's conviction on appeal "to show magnanimity". Call it what you may, it isn't justice. True justice and fairness are independent of political expediency, and if Saberi is innocent she should be free now, not later on a whim of politically motivated magnanimity and a smoke screen of false and una tantum fairness.
This call for fairness smells of machination. Her appeal will probably be fair, she may well be freed and have the charged against her overturned. The outcome will be disastrous for the US either way though. A seemingly fair trial orchestrated to return a guilty verdict will discredit Obama's allegation of the original charges being baseless. An aquittal will instead lend Ahmadinejad credibility in the eyes of many Ayatollah apologists in the West.
I do hope the appeal is successful, but the price to pay will be steep. Ahmadinejad will expect quid pro quo, and the upcoming nuclear negotiations will provide the excellent opportunity for the godfather to clain the return of a favor. I can bet five bucks the appeal hearings will be scheduled during or right after the nuclear negotiations, and Saberi will be used to put pressure on the US envoys.
The only way for the US not to be indebted is to reject this opening as vehemently as they can, and I don't have the guts to advocate such a course of action.
If the Iranian President wanted a truly fair trial of the reporter, he would have invoked fairness right from the beginning of proceedings. An Obama administration would be incapable of reacting strongly to her sentencing, and Iran could have continued on its path of oppression and international disgrace. Why this politically unwarranted sudden turn?
Bloomberg suggests Iran may wish to reverse Saberi's conviction on appeal "to show magnanimity". Call it what you may, it isn't justice. True justice and fairness are independent of political expediency, and if Saberi is innocent she should be free now, not later on a whim of politically motivated magnanimity and a smoke screen of false and una tantum fairness.
This call for fairness smells of machination. Her appeal will probably be fair, she may well be freed and have the charged against her overturned. The outcome will be disastrous for the US either way though. A seemingly fair trial orchestrated to return a guilty verdict will discredit Obama's allegation of the original charges being baseless. An aquittal will instead lend Ahmadinejad credibility in the eyes of many Ayatollah apologists in the West.
I do hope the appeal is successful, but the price to pay will be steep. Ahmadinejad will expect quid pro quo, and the upcoming nuclear negotiations will provide the excellent opportunity for the godfather to clain the return of a favor. I can bet five bucks the appeal hearings will be scheduled during or right after the nuclear negotiations, and Saberi will be used to put pressure on the US envoys.
The only way for the US not to be indebted is to reject this opening as vehemently as they can, and I don't have the guts to advocate such a course of action.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Oh, pleeeeease!
Canadian Centre for Policy Obviousness: tax cuts impact quality of life. Duh!
The research lauds public spending, income redistribution and big government. Most of the commenters embrace the cause of the righteous "poor" against the greedy "rich". I can just see the massive gov't-o-gasm sweeping the left-minded in the nation.
I cry "crock!". Public education, public healthcare, public infrastructure building and merit goods are welcome in my books, as long as they are properly administered and I get value for money. Hiring five managers for every medical staff in the national health system will impact my quality of life negatively while increasing taxes. A tax cut that will force the firing of 90% of managing positions will increase my quality of life because I will have more money and a more streamlined health service.
I want public services of a value equivalent to my tax. Cutting taxes isn't about taking and giving, it's about making public services more efficient. Do we need ten managers for a library? Obviously no, and firing them to save money because of a tax cut isn't going to make my life any worse.
Assuming economics is a zero-sum game is childish. But then, tax advocates are just that: children who cry "Mommy", and mama is in Ottawa.
The research lauds public spending, income redistribution and big government. Most of the commenters embrace the cause of the righteous "poor" against the greedy "rich". I can just see the massive gov't-o-gasm sweeping the left-minded in the nation.
I cry "crock!". Public education, public healthcare, public infrastructure building and merit goods are welcome in my books, as long as they are properly administered and I get value for money. Hiring five managers for every medical staff in the national health system will impact my quality of life negatively while increasing taxes. A tax cut that will force the firing of 90% of managing positions will increase my quality of life because I will have more money and a more streamlined health service.
I want public services of a value equivalent to my tax. Cutting taxes isn't about taking and giving, it's about making public services more efficient. Do we need ten managers for a library? Obviously no, and firing them to save money because of a tax cut isn't going to make my life any worse.
Assuming economics is a zero-sum game is childish. But then, tax advocates are just that: children who cry "Mommy", and mama is in Ottawa.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
At last the bleeding hearts get it
Britain's liberal bleeding hearts finally plan to cut benefits to chronic addicts who do not seek treatment. At long last, and not a second too soon.
The welfare state is not an evil in and of itself. If people be helped in times of need, so be it. When one's in need, however, one does not indulge, and despite all the excuses that the urges of addiction are hard to resist, the crack just doesn't smoke itself. Therefore giving addicts and alcoholics the shove to do something about their condition is finally a step in the right direction.
In times of economic crisis, it is not for the State to cuddle its socialist ego with wasteful welfare that fuels crime, destroys communities and burdens the health system.
The welfare state is not an evil in and of itself. If people be helped in times of need, so be it. When one's in need, however, one does not indulge, and despite all the excuses that the urges of addiction are hard to resist, the crack just doesn't smoke itself. Therefore giving addicts and alcoholics the shove to do something about their condition is finally a step in the right direction.
In times of economic crisis, it is not for the State to cuddle its socialist ego with wasteful welfare that fuels crime, destroys communities and burdens the health system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)