Pink Floyd play hardball, but it's their loss.

While stocks last, their later albums will still be available in stores. But due to their contract with EMI expiring, and the high renewal price demanded by the band, no distribution agreement is in place for their albums.

Well, in the old days of vinyl and Walkmans this attitude could have been effective. Today, however, anyone with enough willingness to obtain something will do so over the internet.

No Pink Floyd on iTunes? No problem, just use Rapidshare or any other big hosting service.

You can play hardball all you like, but the times of cornering the market have passed.

Let them build if they want to gamble!

The Cordoba initiative (a.k.a. the Ground Zero Mosque) has attracted controversy and caused at least one new entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, courtesy of Sarah Palin. My Blogging Tories colleagues have been weighing in extensively.

Dr Roy remarked "These builders may have the right to build this , but they really shouldn't. It is a deliberate provocation and will further poison the atmosphere between Muslims and other North Americans." At Searching for Liberty, the author leaves it to Rahel Raza and Tarek Fatah to express his disapproval by quoting their Calgary Herald column on the issue. The Blog Quebecois brings us a case from across the pond in Germany, where extremism was spread under the guise of "culture". The greatest amount of coverage can be found at Moose and Squirrel, firmly in the disagreement camp.

I will beg to differ, and "refudiate" Sarah Palin while at it. The difference between her and Margaret Thatcher, for want of a less prominent comparison, is that Maggie's balls of steel did not have a cerebral opportunity cost.

So, developers are looking to make some bucks from two loss-making buildings in downtown New York and come up with the idea of a cultural centre. Being Muslim themselves, they can definitely know better how to build a Muslim centre than, say, a Hassidic one. So far so good, pity the neighbourhood isn't exactly your run-of-the-mill big downtown business district.

Because radical nuts caused the death of 3000 people nearby, the site and its surroundings expose a very sensitive nerve that hates being touched. The developers, displaying crass lack of PR, proceed then to patronise all within earshot about how their centre will promote "understanding", "tolerance" and other intangible, unmeasurable and generally empty concepts. Because on the face of it, they've been used so extensively that they're now devoid of value. Inflation works for words too, apparently.

Those who protest, legitimately, the building of the islamic cultural centre seem to screen out the fact the proposed development does no harm. It's provocative allright, and possibly ill thought out, but it is legal and does no-one an ounce of harm. On that merit alone it passes the test of a libertarian. 

The Western press regularly reprints the cartoons of the prophet in order to assert its freedom. The Cordoba Initiative is giving us a taste of our own medicine in that regard. Our most correct and noble course of action would be to let them build the damn thing.

Firstly, its location would be a poignant reminder to its attendees about what happened close by. With a good and scholarly imam it could indeed turn into a centre preaching tolerance and peace.

Secondly, and no less importantly, the interest surrounding it could be a stimulus for both religions to study each other without resorting to rhetoric. Right now the dialectic resembles an exchange between Mullah Omar and Fred Phelps. Understanding and tolerance can come solely through a deep mutual study, in order to see  each other's moral and philosophical bedrock. Islam is not radical by nature, but it does lend itself to misinterpretation. If the Cordoba centre helps correct the mistakes of many, it won't be a waste of space and money.

Thirdly, it might at last serve as a stepping stone for many budding American Islamic scholars and imams. What should be encouraged (and maybe given a little money by Bloomberg the appeaser) is a closer tie to Egypt's Al Azhar University rather than wahhabi Saudi madrassas. I am sure there are tons of American muslim youngsters who would love to study their religion and preach it. Their dreams are hijacked by those who groom them into radicalism. Maybe, just maybe, Cordoba could be persuaded to reverse this trend and begin breeding a generation of well-versed American imams. That would go a long way to nipping the mosque radicalisation in the bud.

Many Westerners buy into the garbage that this centre is equivalent to a declaration of victory by the Muslim community, citing some symbolism. Do we really wish to lower ourselves to considering the rantings of deluded schizophrenics as actually debatable?

I call it a wedge. It is the make-or-break for the Muslim community in America and in Manhattan especially. Will they let their most public face be sullied by extremist material and preachers? If they do, it will be an indelible stain on the entire community and break all the remaining trust between America and its Muslim citizens. The stakes are high and the gamble can pay off handsomely.

For its part, America should do what it does best and keep watch. Should radicalism seep into Cordoba's operations, it should dispense stick.

Being cool is like being a lady...

... if you have to state it, you aren't. Halle-bloody-lujah, then to David Cameron for ditching the ghastly "Cool Britannia" shtick some latte-sipping acne-ridden over-enthusiastic Blairite teenaged thicko staffer came up with. I struggle with the notion an adult could so demean one's country, so I'll assume it was some teenage activist-turned-advisor.

Ever seen Scooch, the British entry, at Eurovision 2007? I did, and wanted to die. They prompted a good friend, British through-and-through, to contemplate seeking asylum in Russia. Their entry, at least, was just rubbish, rather than rubbish and embarrassing. I blame Scooch on Cool Britannia, and that alone earns this mantra the guillotine.

Lady Britannia isn't meant to be cool, but awe-inspiring and commanding respect. With the exception of dumb idiots, guilt-tripped lefties and Robert Mugabe most of the world sees Britain as a foundation upon which the modern world is built and should be modelled after. It gave the law, industry and development to billions. Its history, values and institutions are an attraction and an inspiration to billions more. 

Cool Britannia sought to demean the heritage of Britain and then market this unsightly shadow of Britain's glory as something "cool". Just like some new fashion "designers" who make pretend they rummaged through a rubbish tip to come up with a look so trashy a charity shop wouldn't take those clothes even new. 

Rule, Britannia! on the other hand is embracing and strengthening this model heritage so that it may shine a beacon where it's dark. In the meantime, it will also attract tourists who want more than wear Union Jack pants, get stoned in Camden Town, sloshed in Manchester and eaten by the Loch Ness monster.

When you see the Union Jack and you don't speak either English or Pushtun, chances are Lady Britannia kicked your ass more often than you kicked hers. Chances are, you will also recognise she is awesome for that very reason, unless of course you are quite dumb, a guilt-tripped lefty or Robert Mugabe.

It follows by logic that Cool Britannia appealed to dumb people, guilt-tripped lefties and Robert Mugabe. Ergo, it belongs in the dustbin, QED. Thank you, David Cameron.

There's always a good reason to snoop

As the Saudi government wrestled with Research in Motion over the encryption keys, other countries no less eager to violate their citizens' privacy were gearing up for a fight. No wonder, then, that a sleuth of national authorities are threatening to ban Blackberry messaging and e-mails unless RIM hands over a way of accessing the until today secure network.

Reasons vary, but we can safely assume terrorism and morality are the top two catch-all justifications for attempting to force RIM's hand. For all their balking, the USA would be first in line for the Snoopville Express had a Blackberry-engineered plot been foiled on their own soil and the media had got a hold of the story. Should we applaud India's efforts, then, as it strives to prevent a Mumbai 2.0? Or shall we just limit ourselves to understanding their motives and basking in our obvious relativism?

To blame the snooping governments is to see only half of the picture. The market economy and competition have brought down the price of smartphones exactly because tons can be produced and shipped anywhere for the enjoyment of Messrs Smith, Nasser, Singh and others. The biggest trouble for all businesses with a conscience is that the largest markets are also potentially the most oppressively and erratically run. Google's travails in China are a case in point: in the end, they all bend over.

The citizenry in the US, Canada, Australia and Europe has a highly developed mental framework for its governments to fit into. We value our privacy. When our government wants to violate it, we vote the government out. When our own safeguards fail, our constitutions (usually written by people far more enlightened than all of us combined, particularly before the 1960's) protect us from our own relativism that would surrender our last ounce of liberty for a perceived better security.

Do we really believe that Indians will vote out Mahmoah Singh's government for this intrusion? Even the cash stashes of the powerful Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore business executives could be expended when the sole mention of Pakistan would stir the masses into acceptance. In Arab countries the citizenry is ingenuous in breaking oppressive laws but has no say on the legislature whatsoever.

Let's face it: if RIM stood its ground and got banned, its potential customers would resort to other Sharia-breaking ingenuity or just buy an iPhone at the Delhi Apple Store. Our encryptions are safe until our political process is bankrolled by big businesses who use Blackberries extensively and the populace does not feel threatened.

When the next US terror plot surfaces where Blackberry encryption was a key to secrecy, Fox News will be all over it. Voters in primaries will demand that "something get done" and politicians will oblige.

Our appetite for cheaper handsets is satiated by economies of scale unloading tons of the same product elsewhere. Those who long for RIM to give the Arabs and Indians the finger aren't as willing to pay more for their gadget, compensating the market loss. If data plans weren't so expensive, and fraudulently punitive for over-usage, maybe RIM could expand in Canada and the US to compensate. 

Who'll tell Bell and Rogers the fight for liberty needs them? Who, among those, will expect them not to use the opportunity to shaft RIM and the users with more fees?

In a global market where oppression is the norm, privacy doesn't come cheap. It's time we woke up to this and stopped blaming RIM or the governments that are hounding it. One's trying to compete with the other shiny thing in your gadget store, the other's just doing what it can get away with. You and I bear the opportunity cost.

I just hope King Abdullah and Prime Minister Singh find drunk texts humorous, because that's what I would feed them.

If you're sniffing the money, do it quietly

So here we go again, where business freedom, religious values and equality laws clash. At "The Way the Ball Bounces" Richard recounts two cases, one in the UK and one in PEI, of devoutly Christian accommodation owners running into the wrath of Stonewall - a gay advocacy group - and the HRC. 

We cherish business freedom as a foundation of the free market, and our own freedom to do as we please as the bedrock of democracy. When these appear to conflict with the law of the land, we are quick to cry foul and demand legislative change. Is this rage always justified?

"Money doesn't stink" - Adam Smith would say if he were explaining the market to an ignoramus as me. Picky owners of businesses that provide a service to the public (a.k.a. all businesses) sniff the money before taking it. Should they have the right to? Definitely, but it's not smart.

Denying an advertised service based on nothing but personal belief flaunts the law, and advocate of personal freedom as I may be, I recognize the supremacy of the statute book. Business owners have a duty to know the letter of the law of the jurisdiction they operate in. Would you argue in favour of a Christian who is being done in Iran for selling alcohol? Or a Muslim shopkeeper who refuses entry to women not wearing a headscarf? I wouldn't.

There isn't a law that can't be circumvented. The B&B owners who want to discriminate should simply make their services by invitation only. Have prospective bookers fill out a form online asking several questions and waive their right to appeal if the invitation is denied. Denying services to people who misrepresented themselves is perfectly legal, or at least gives you more of a case. After all, you're still pushing the envelope without a cost justification.

If you can't prove a cost, comply.

Establishments have no-pets policies because of the added clean-up, no-children policies because of potential insurance issues and over-occupancy policies because of perceived fire hazards, to say. 

Washing sheets that have been bonked on will cost the same, whoever soiled them.

A prosecutor who takes no crap

Recently, the Telegraph ran a profile of Ilda Boccassini, a firebrand public prosecutor in Italy who hounds organized crime in all its forms and manifestations. She haunts Berlusconi's nightmares.

Today I appreciated the full extent of her chutzpah. Never a softie - her mentor was Giovanni Falcone - she today ordered an uncooperative victim of mob usury into the slammer. The fight against Italian mobs is plagued by the omerta' - zipped mouths and no cooperation. It's the equivalent of saying you saw nothing when a person was shot in front of you, or that you fell down the stairs rather than your debt shark beat you up.

Adding insult to injury, the guy was advising another victim against giving evidence to the point of threatening repercussions against the witness' family.

He will now go to trial for aiding and abetting his tormentors, and this kind of no-sh*t approach is the correct way to stomp the mob out of its newly-found turfs. Carrots can work and fear can be a justification for not being cooperative. But lying and choosing the mob over the State should carry an exemplary penalty, for it is treason.

Boy, I hope her bodyguards are good!

Is it such a revolutionary concept?

Minimize expenses and maximize returns, also known as don't let debt eat your earnings. I was raised in a debt-averse family and society, where saving and parsimony weren't dirty words or concepts that made one "uncool". The whole concept of the credit crisis hits me as something both rational and yet astonishingly idiotic.

So reading the common sense in the National Post fills me with admiration for a newspaper that aims to educate the masses about the mathematics of personal finance. The bitter aftertaste comes when I realize there's a need for such an article, hence its printing.

My comprehension of the money world stops at the surface, for want of a financial education. My wallet, nevertheless, compels me to look at interest rates, taxes and opportunities to make sure my money doesn't burn on the inflation bonfire. If I can do a simple compound interest calculation, how hard can it be to know  you're flogging a dead horse? 

Taking control of your finances rarely goes beyond having a basic knowledge of Excel and where your money is. Do it!

Johnston as Governor-General

A strong candidate for the job and a welcome diversion from the quirks of the Jean-Lafond couple, despite Her Excellency's wise tenure.

A law-educated federalist with a good financial focus, he is our best insurance against the nationalising and over-regulating left should the Opposition resurrect a Coalition and oust the Tories.

As an official figure, he would be almost unable to influence the political debate. But in the private meetings with both PM's and Leaders of the Opposition he would be a fountain of knowledge.

Considering the latest business-bashing frenzies across the border and across the pond, Johnston is the right GG for the times. He's an all-out Canadian, and that is good.

Free markets, air conditioning, physics and the Internet

Now here's an article to link them all.

Humid heat makes me slightly irascible and it is therefore a blessing that me and my girlfriend have bought a portable AC. Facts speak louder than words, and it says a lot about the current weather that 27 degrees feels like heaven compared to the living room. 

As it is no intention of mine to plug the Pinguino De Longhi brand (italian, funny name and a classic advertising campaign in the 90's), I'll address the issue of common sense, so dear to me.

See, the free market operates well when both buyers and sellers operate rationally and true information is available. Which means capitalism won't work when people think (or write) with their backside. And boy, does one see that in action while navigating the ocean of junk consumer reviews that litter the interwebs.

Let's begin with an easy one. Middle school physics and chemistry teaches us that nothing can be created and nothing is destroyed, including energy. Cooling your room means the heat has to go somewhere, usually in the form of the scalding hot air from the compressor being sent packing. As inevitable as our tax bill and our ultimate demise, comes the zero-star review proclaiming "dude, this portable AC has a huge exhaust hose! No-one ever mentioned it! Do not buy!". Oh man, your science teacher is proud!

Another gem can be found in the noise department. Usual complaints about the cheaper portable ACs include the fact that they're noisy buggers. I give, this is a very fair comment, particularly on hearing it soon after having started it up. Yet we're talking online reviews here rather than first impressions. As per previous constatation that the compressor is incorporated into the unit, how can one review a cheaper portable AC expecting the firm to fit a mother-of-expensive silent compressor into it?

Classic but subtler, the criticism of the AC requiring extra air from outside (ergo, hotter) to work properly. Well, thinking about it rationally, if there's a big fan blowing air from your room onto a hot heatsink and out through a big hose into the street, where does one expect the replacement air to come from? The trick, naturally, is that the massive temperature difference between the exhaust and replacement air results in a net loss of heat from the room. Ergo, it cools.

Among the crassest, an Italian's review on ciao.it. The customer in question, after consulting with his cousin who used a 7000 BTU through-the-wall unit to cool his bedroom, proceeded to purchase a 6000 BTU portable AC to cool off his 600-odd square foot living room. The obvious result is no cooling, a negative review and a distortion of the AC's rating on the site. Now can someone please tell me how I am supposed to make an informed choice when given such garbage?

Which brings me to my final point, though there would be many others. I am pretty satisfied with being spared the risk of snapping at people for no reason but the heat. However, while trying to filter out the junk and idiocy from the various AC units' reviews, I altogether forgot to contemplate, or ask about, the presence or not of an inverter.

So I am presently stuck doing research as to whether letting the compressor trip into action three times an hour at a setting of 27 degrees is a wise choice for the welfare of my wallet. Given that lower settings are expensive, higher settings are uncomfortable and an inverter-endowed AC unit would have set us back far more than this one, I reckon I shouldn't be complaining. Those 9000 BTUs are surely very appreciated.

I wonder what Jefferson thought

Well, I'll be darned: the founding fathers were indeed human, and did change their minds from time to time. An already-known edit in a draft of the Declaration of Independence shows Jefferson's careful erasure of the word "subjects" and its replacement with "citizens".

I haven't much to add to the CSM's commentary, except for an important deduction.

Semantics count!