Having the cake and eating it too

How on earth can you negotiate a common security perimeter and at the same time slap an inspection fee on Canadian visitors? It makes no sense. The latest White House proposal for the next US budget, among other things, includes the aforementioned idiocy.

This kind of move is either stupid, or an acknowledgment that the common perimeter negotiations have failed. If this is what the Liberals wanted, congrats. Shafting Canadians in the name of petty politics is quite the policy for a decent government!

I read some Marx

...and I liked it.

h/t my good friend and fellow Tory Laura-Rose Saunders. She'll be giving more.

What if the Egyptians really succeed?

The Egypt protests have achieved a statement by Hosni Mubarak that he won't seek re-election. More importantly, they've secured a guarantee from the Army that they won't shoot. Between the two, it's the latter that counts.

In a country where 90% of the territory is a designated military zone some way or the other, and a permanent state of emergency has reigned for most of the past years the insubordination (of sorts) of the armed forces is a clear sign the current ruler has lost the rudder.

Well, good for Egypt for getting rid of a despot. As the record of "hope and change" is shaky in the beacon of democracy that is the US, the prospect for Egypt is hardly rosy.

Whichever "democratic" government comes to power, it will have three main agenda items: curtailing Army and Police powers, maintaining American military aid and keeping a peaceful relationship with Israel.

Whichever they do, they'll be damned by a very key stakeholder. The US should be wary of bankrolling a Brotherhood-backed government; being nice to Israel will upset the Brotherhood or - if done with Brotherhood support - significantly dent Egypt's appeal as a regional power broker; lastly, the moment special forces see their free-for-all come to an end, their "support" for the uprising will fade as quickly as it materialised.

I honestly hope Egypt makes it through. Looking at the past few "revolutions", I am disheartened. Kosovo is run by crooks. Georgia has a megalomaniac dictator for leader. Kyrgyzstan needed a revolutionary "follow-up" that nearly ended in civil war. Ukrainians decided the crook they wanted out was an improvement over the rabble they put in his place. Tunisia is still convulsing and God knows what's in store in Algeria and Yemen. A power vacuum in Egypt is the last thing we need.

So long Hosni. I hope you won't have cause to quote to your opponents former Russian PM Viktor Chernomyrdin. His words - "We wanted to do what's best, and it ended up as usual" - would be a tragedy if applied to the Egypt, and the world of today.

Not a good start for Ground Zero mosque

Their new imam is a prolific dontopedologist: he opens his mouth and his foot's in it pronto. When he speaks academically he is confusing, and when he speaks straightforwardly he's a bigot.

(And God, I hate calling it the GZ mosque, but hey - rhetoric be rhetoric and traffic be traffic!)

Quite a few media reports misquoted him on apostasy, claiming he said apostates should be jailed. Abdallah Adhami said no such thing. His crime is omission. Answering a question (and writing an article), he outlined historical attitudes to apostasy, leaving a gaping chasm as to how we should go about it today. His clear skepticism about protests at any whiff of challenge to the Muslim faith is smudged, smeared and scrambled by an abyssal communication - and political - ineptitude.

Today, he tasted patent leather for lunch by proffering his prejudice on the origin of homosexual drive. Gay people come from good, bad, Christian, Muslim, liberal, conservative, rich and poor families alike - a person of Adhami's scholarship should grasp as much. 

Fully knowing how hot a seat he parked his ass on, he seems incapable of judging what to say, and if, when and how. Even I know that quotes can be taken out of context and that media will dumb down everything. They assume their audience to be as dense as pudding and to hold the same in lieu of brains.

The new imam of the Ground Zero mosque is undoubtedly a scholar and, in a few matters, a moderate. He also possesses the misfortunes of political clumsiness, prejudice and a bad case of verbal shlits. 

This catastrophe in the making calls for a good PR man to train the guy in elementary succinction, political tact and good old-fashioned "silence is golden".

Thanks for nothing, CRTC!

As an avid user of these so-called "interwebs", I behave as any normal consumer would - wanting more for less. When looking for a good broadband plan, I chose my provider - Teksavvy - because they offered as close to unlimited use as one could possibly get, at a knock-down price.

Despite it being very convenient for me, I couldn't help but feel the awkwardness of the situation. Bell customers, poor souls, slapped with an unforgiving cap and overcharged for the fun of it; meanwhile I could surf carefree,  with no cap through a provider who used Bell's network. This has, naturally, come to a crashing end with the recent CRTC ruling that gave Bell the right to charge its network users, including wholesale clients, based on usage rather than for mere bandwidth blocks.

Property be property, if you own the network you should have the right to charge for its use as you see fit. Yet forcing your competitors to charge the same as you do is lame policy. A lameness comparable to that of the standard excuse for such charges: "preserving capacity".

This argument reminds me of Senator Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" quote. Bell and Rogers' charges per gigabyte, both within and over caps, are stellar enough to send the marginal utility of every extra GB of  capacity through the roof. There's no excuse for not beefing up networks when there's demand. 

If large amounts of non-profitable data is the problem, the CRTC could - and should - have forced Bell to un-bundle its network capacity. A client's running of a business site, torrenting, video streaming, peer-to-peer exchange, browsing, internet radio or VoIP are significantly different classes of usage. Their intrinsic value to each and every consumer are vastly different.

Right now, Bell is forcing everyone to charge $X for "groceries", rather than $A for "apples", $B for "oranges" and $C for "meat". 

The CRTC could have done Canadians a service by forcing bandwidth providers to give consumers choice over what they want from their internet connection. Bell and Rogers could have cashed in on the new offerings, such as Netflix, by offering privileged or unlimited access by consumers to Netflix servers for streaming, maybe for a small extra fee. How hard can it be to set up a privileged VPN? 

"Dear user, do you like movies? For $5 a month, you can connect to NetFlix through our dedicated VPN network. Stream unlimited movies without worrying about your usage cap. Yours, Bell". 

So long to seeing that level of smartness.

After all, with usage is limited to 25 GB you'd gladly pay extra per movie to have that usage taken off your bill. If, as a movie fanatic, you couldn't care less about torrents and P2P, you would very well forfeit your right to use that kind of protocol for the privilege of unlimited streaming, or internet radio, or VoIP. 

Net neutrality tends to hurt suppliers, while blind proprietorship hurts consumers. When will someone get a bloody grip and use their brains for thinking?

The ruling by the CRTC is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. You get a pulped walnut, a dent in your table and remain hungry.

Catch-22s in health care are unworthy of Canada.

A bleeding heart I am not, but this one takes the biscuit! Asking the penniless to pay up-front because the government is too slow in reimbursing you is the worst PR for your business and, in the end, a very expensive choice for the country.

Not all refugees spend $50k to be shipped to the country, and a big majority of them - I'd bet - are really genuine seekers of freedom from fear. We can debate the merits and demerits of affording those whose status is uncertain the privilege of a blank cheque. The proposal from the Quebec pharmacists' association binds those affected in a Catch-22 situation unworthy of a civilised country.

Currently, pharmacists give out drugs to refugee claimants and other penniless newcomer categories, then file for reimbursement with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The proposed policy shift would transfer the reimbursement onus on the consumer. 

If you're penniless, you will be able to afford squat. Until you get a 2 or 3-numbered SIN, forget about decent credit cards that would allow some form of deferral. When there's rent, bills and expenses to pay, one can hardly cough up for the necessary meds for a chronic condition, or an acute one for that matter.

How can this be beneficial for the country at large? Without medications, deteriorating conditions will clog up hospitals, emergency rooms and clinics. Instead of subsidising a smaller medication purchase, we'd end up paying out of our pocket for extra hospital, doctor, nurse and equipment time. You don't need an accountancy degree to figure out what's least expensive.

It's the usual crap. Governmental schemes are inefficient, so it's taken out on those who can't answer back. Rather than give bureaucrats and pen-men a nudge, the pharmacists take the easy way out. More shockingly for me, the most "agreed" comments on the CBC web site - usually reserved for those hearts bleeding most copiously - were attacking the very principle of the subsidy scheme. I've never seen such tightness regarding taxpayer money. Maybe the cause lies in many Canadians lacking comprehensive coverage too, ergo their health care nerve is very raw.

The Quebec Pharmacists' Association's concerns are legitimate: a private business has to have timely payments. It is however unfair to dump the consequences of public inefficiencies onto those who, according to treaties by the same critical and tight bleeding hearts to death defended, we have taken upon ourselves to protect and shelter.

The F-35 isn't just a fighter jet.

Countries buy weapons to kick ass and avoid getting one's own kicked by others. In this context, Canada's CF-18 Hornets are excellent defence tools, except for their age and the fact they're no longer in production. (Commenter pointed out this last assertion is inaccurate. Apologies)

I am no defence expert: my aviation knowledge stretches barely beyond the ideal economy class seats on a few Airbus or Boeing models. Reading around, I could determine that we could replace the CF-18s with Boeing's F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets right away. At least, those can carry a similar load to the CF-18, to approximately the same distance in combat.

Let's pause for a second. Our neighbours are the US, Denmark, France and Russia, and the chances of a military confrontation with all but one are nil. The F-35 will, one assumes, be used up north to intercept pesky Russian Sukhoi Su-35s or PAKs that stray a tad too much into Canadian airspace.

With the current hot seller, the Su-35, we are fairly safe as it can't be stealthy enough. Sure, it can carry 12 "Adder" missiles and some more, but that load would make it conspicuous enough on radars to render it useless.

The new Sukhoi PAK, instead, will be able to carry eight vicious "Adders" in its internal bays alone. By comparison, the most optimistic designs for the F-35 allow for only six comparably effective rockets to be carried without trading away stealth. Chances are it's going to have only four.

We are therefore outgunned - but not outmanoeuvred - in air-to-air combat and too far from Russian mainland for a stealth mission anyway. The F-35s are a formidable defensive machine, and their purchase should be accompanied soon by investment into Arctic air bases to increase the F-35's coverage. Consistent with a policy of reclaiming the Arctic, radar stations and missile defences are probably a good idea as well.

The Liberal, the peacenik and the cost-sensitive libertarian would now argue the entire project's a boondoggle and miss an important nuance. The F-35 is the best money will be able to buy in a few years' time. Among US developments, it's the best bang for one's buck and second only to the F-22 Raptor, which is not for export. The project doesn't involve going shopping in Europe: a course of action that would bring zero benefits to Canadian companies as opposed to the current F-35 contracts.

Never forget, lastly, the Russian factor. The country may not be insane enough to risk being hit by the US nuclear umbrella, but it is an inherently childish superpower. Our purchase of older models such as the Super Hornets - or a pull-out from a major development - would be perceived as weakness in Moscow, with a consequent hardening of the Kremlin's Arctic stance for demagogic gain.

We can't afford to look weak to our biggest neighbour and we can't afford upsetting our closest. In the end, joint contracts like these are the safest way of maintaining a solid argument against US protectionists across the party spectrum. Call this the silver lining if you wish.

While we're at it, we should get Bombardier and the aerospace lot into the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle development. It will be the next "cool" fighter when it goes on sale.

Ignatieff seems completely oblivious to the ramifications of his misguided policies. His Russian blood isn't warning him of how weak Canada would look if it threw in the towel; his American and British experiences don't seem to suggest him that our partners would feel cheated; his Canadian blood won't stop him from throwing Canadian workers and industry under the bus. 

Is the guy for real?

Chez Ignatieff, abstraction is a scarce skill indeed.

Everything's pointing to an election, sooner rather than later. The ads are up on the Tory side, filling the airwaves before the writs inevitably strangle the Conservative media might. The NDP is brushing up its populism, skillfully debunked by Tasha Kheiriddin in the NP. More shockingly, the Liberals have pulled the stops on their drivel taps and shown yet again their ineptitude at elementary political abstraction.

Let me elaborate. For want of an intelligent question, an interviewer digs up an old scarecrow, which our Prime Minister rightfully dismisses. What one believes is not necessarily one's policy. Heavens above, the red party crows for a parliamentary vote on the PM's beliefs, confident of empty screaming being akin to enshrining something in truth. Hardly so! Ascribing the PM policy he never suggested is outright lying, and should be called as such. How I long for the day when a Liberal will stand up publicly and beg his own party's leadership to grow the heck up!

For one, being mendacious is contemptuous of the electorate one is called to represent. The Liberals constantly offend Canadians' intelligence by assuming no-one thinks beyond what they hear on the telly.

Secondly, clamouring for a vote on a policy the Government has no intention of pursuing - simply because someone may believe something - shows a deep ignorance of Parliament's role. The House of Commons is not the Grits', or anyone's sandpit! 

If those who aspire to lead us cannot muster enough integrity to abstract the man Harper from the office upon him bestowed, how can they be trusted to govern in our interest rather than their petty own?

The Senate doesn't get it!

For a Democrat-controlled Senate with a friendlier GOP presence, yesterday's halt to repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is either unabashed cowardice or - for the conspiracy theorists - a sop to interests unknown. It is an ill-designed policy geared at righting a human imperfection. Fearing and banishing that which does not conform to one's standard has been commonplace in our species. Seeking to avoid this (supposedly) triggering a breakdown of the armed forces, top brass came up with DADT and proceeded to completely screw it up. And I doubt the Senate's vote reflected any presence of common sense.

I'd like to know, for the sake of statistics, how many servicemen were dragged before hearings for breaking the "ask" clause, rather than the "tell" one. Bashing someone for being honest and open is easy. Applying the same standard to those who ask useless (or bullying) questions is a tad harder.

DADT has no practical use, for as far as I know a gay soldier's blood is no less red than a straight one's. 

It should either be applied across the board and with equal force against those who bother servicemen with queries about their sexual preferences, or struck off altogether; let the armed forces deal with the (oh, shock!) reality that gay people don't enlist to look at their comrades' junk. 

Their dedication to the country and its safety leads them to willingly sign off their independence and put their lives on the block. Prejudice and unfairness are not a legal tender to repay them with.

Sharing plenty of cheer in Pierrefonds-Dollard

Tories know how to party well, that's for sure. Yesterday's Pierrefonds-Dollard gala dinner was a blast. Firstly, the food and the company were amazing. In addition to members of the P-D EDA board and the Youth Committee, the event was attended by Barbara Pisani of Union-Montreal and, as guest of honour, Senator Brazeau. To complement the cultural and ethnic mix, the Filipino and Ukrainian community reps were present in their numbers, as well as volunteers and well-wishers hailing from a dozen national origins.

Agop Evereklian delivered an optimistic address, promising to "let loose"; nothing to hold the tabloid presses though. The political honours were done by Senator Brazeau, who focused on describing why he is Conservative despite the consensus in his community, at the time, that Algonquin interests lay in the Liberal Party. I am always amazed at the insight he is ready to give, and the ease with which one can approach him and chat. For someone as clueless on native affairs as I am, the Senator is a well of wisdom.

The Senator also took time, on the drive from Ottawa, to pen down twelve achievements and wishes of the conservative government - which guests were invited to sing out to the tune of "twelve days of Christmas". I wonder if anyone recorded it.

Laugh as we may, Conservatives have plenty to be proud of. For a minority government faced with an opportunistic and ambitious Opposition, we have survived for longer - and achieved more - than could ever be predicted. When push comes to shove, some say as early as next spring, we will be ready, willing and more than able. With candidates as Agop, and grassroots as I witnessed yesterday, we're truly deserving of being the natural governing party of Canada.