Free thinking unabridged

Drugs: still wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:10:00 +0000

Drugs policy, what a bed of nails. Bill C-15 is stalled (thankfully), now the United Nations seems to argue for shifting drug policy foci from punishing users to more crackdowns on traffickers and more treatment. At the same time, Canada is revealed as a meth warehouse.

Let's state the obvious: you own your body and are free to destroy it as you please. The notion of being slapped on the wrist if you break the law should be just as obvious to proponents of the former, for you can't have one without the other.

Drugs exist and circulate as long as there is a route from producer to consumer, and are susceptible to demand and supply dynamics as any other exchangeable good. Efforts so far have focused on combating trafficking, which should cut supply and drive up prices. In Britain (at least), this resulted in greater cocaine "cutting" instead, with the country still being the cokehead of Europe.

Penalties for trafficking should reach into the highest locally imposable punishments, and I for one applaud the harshness of Colombian, Laotian and Cambodian (among others) justice systems. The Colombian one-year-per-gram is definitely a fantastic deterrent, if only its applications were given more publicity. Consumption, on the other hand, has always been a point of contention.

Boiling the issue down to the transaction itself, buying property obtained through illegal means is illegal in most jurisdictions. Penalties vary, but it lands you with a record. Possession and use of illicit drugs should be, therefore, punishable under that clause. It can be as light as a 1 dollar on-the-spot fine, but unless there is a clear distinction between right and wrong hardly any drug policy will work.

While we may treasure the freedom of taking drugs, we can't dispense with the entire body of law that regulates commerce and exchange. It is wrong to transact with an individual who forwards the proceeds to law-breakers and is not compliant with consumption tax law. On this basis alone the user is eligible for a penalty. I for one believe the offence should be an infraction rather than an indictable crime.

Unless we legalize, regulate and tax the production, import, distribution and safety of illicit substances (a policy I lean toward), possession of them remains abetting a violation of the law. Possession and confirmed use should land you with a fine (however light) and a record expungeable only by reporting to a treatment centre. The most ironic way would be to correlate the fine to local GST and PST, so the State would solely take its due from the transaction.

If I can't buy a stolen bike I won't argue for your right to get high on something that took a dozen broken laws to get in your pocket. But for God's sake don't go with much-trumpeted Bills after the rebel Che-Guevara-shirt-wearing capitalism-bashing daddy's kiddo who keeps a pot plant to delight in the knowledge of giving a finger to Big Brother. That's just potty!

The bitter fruit of theocratic illusion

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:44:00 +0000

When the ringmaster of the circus comes out saying a ballot is valid and the opposition should stop protesting, your gut usually reminds you it's rubbish. Over the past week I've heard from many whose knowledge of Iran and regional affairs far exceeds mine, and it's clear that the ballot is stolen and the ayatollahs have dropped their mask and merely made explicit what has been the truth all along: there's no such thing as a theocratic democracy.

My hopes rest on the demonstrators and the combination of courage and resolve I stereotypically associate with anyone Persian. They put the fundamentalists in power in the first place, it's their duty to throw them into the dustbin of history. No foreign power should do it on their behalf, as we've so catastrophically tried and bungled in Iraq.

The buzzword I heard most in the first days after the election was stolen was "shock". The shock horror of being denied the freedom to choose your country's number 2 and denied the regime-approved President you actually wanted. Yet with the political system Iran gave itself, this was simply waiting to happen. From an ignorant's viewpoint, a key lesson of people power was tragically left at the scene of the 1979 Revolution: if you trust yourself to discern right and wrong, you should never yield that power to anyone, let alone an unelected mullah. If you do, expect to be trampled.

Today, Iran is at a crossroads (duh!). Whatever direction it takes, the world in its entirety won't be the same again. With the myth of theocracy-democracy coexisting demolished, mainstream political Islam will look for another model order. What this order shapes up to be will determine the course of the next five decades. If it veers to Mosque-State dialectic rather than fusion the paradigm shift will be comparable to Reformation.

In the meantime, we will have to sit and wait for the turmoil to conclude.

If you want to neuter Iran, now is the time

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:42:00 +0000

Maybe, just maybe, Iran really has a gullible and short-sighted majority of the populace. In this case, Ahmadinejad's second term seems no wonder to anyone. We will see in four years' time whether the tide turns.

However, a greater problem looms. The crackpot's re-election ensures four more years of nuclear proliferation. I'm not a fan of the "45-minute notice" rhetoric, but we certainly can't afford to waste any more time. Iran has repeatedly refused Russian offers of enrichment outsourcing and its Natanz plant possesses way more centrifuges than would be required to obtain the fuel-grade 3% purity.

Though I would be wary of an outsourcing deal with the US or another democratic nuclear power, Russia is an unaligned thuggish dictatorship-in-all-but-name. They could be best pals and their reciprocal trust would be cemented by the contempt most of the developed world holds their policies in. Therefore Iran's nuclear ambitions are far from empty words.

Four years is a long political time, over which people can get bored of a news story and come to forgive and forget past wrongs. Margaret Thatcher's Falklands success should serve as a lesson.

Iran has to be neutered of its nuclear capabilities. A swift strike today would leave four years of dust-settling before the next presidential election. While in the short term Ahmadinejad's popularity will skyrocket, in four years' time it willl be business as usual.

This scenario has two possible outcomes. On one hand, Ahmadinejad would be unable to respond violently to the attack, leaving him and his faction permanently embarrassed before his own rhetoric-drunk populace.

Alternatively we may have an attempted nuclear strike against Israel and an invasion of Iraq to channel public resentment. If that were to occur, God help us all.

When did abstention become fashionable?

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:32:00 +0000

I've never shunned the ballot box in my life, ever. I voted for the Italian and EU Parliaments, all Italian referendums, my Italian local elections if I was in the country, the Greater London Assembly, Camden Council, the UK Conservative leadership and the London Mayor Conservative primary. So it really irks me to hear several parties calling upon the Italian citizenry not to vote in the upcoming electoral law referendums.

Independently of the merits and demerits of the propositions, in Italy any referendum has to have a turnout of 50%+1 to be valid. When special interest groups know they are a minority but hate the proposed change, a "stay at home" campaign is mounted. This is political mediocrity at its finest.

It may sound obvious, but a vote is a duty. Try to come up with a reasoned opinion on an issue you are indifferent to. If you firmly believe you have no opinion, leave the ballot blank. If everyone disgusts you, spoil it. If you sit on your bum, don't complain when things don't go your way or nutcases win seats in your country. The end.

An announced and expected wipeout

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 17:49:00 +0000

Labour is toast. They have been wiped off the county council map and so far (with many wards still to declare) it has lost 200 of the 450 council seats it was defending.

In Bristol, the minority Labour administration was kicked out earlier, and the city now obtained a Liberal-Democrat majority, with Labour holding on only to two of the ten seats it was defending in this round. The fortresses of Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and Staffordshire have fallen. With 11 wards to declare at the time of writing, the Tories needed only one win to secure a majority on the county council. In Cumbria, usually very Labourite, the Conservatives are the largest party in the council without holding an outright majority.

The Tories also snatched Devon and Somerset from the Liberal Democrats.

Combined with the wave of resignations by junior and senior ministers, Brown's position is rocky indeed. When even the Guardian says there's a problem with Labour and it's time to cut Gordon loose, you know things are bad. The Times also had a series of scathing comments, including "Vote Labour, vote mayhem". Although I cannot retrieve the article, The Sun strongly endorsed the Tories in this round of local and European elections as well.

On Monday the Labour Party caucus will meet after taking the European ballot drubbing. If Gordon Brown is Prime Minister on Tuesday, we will have to conclude that either he is the most tenacious political survivor or the party he leads is spinelessly accepting its fate and delaying the inevitable wipeout. This wouldn't be a problem if a leader with a vision was at the helm. Instead, Britain has a discredited Prime Minister who can't even keep his Cabinet in order. Not good.

This is why, despite all, I am pro choice

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:37:00 +0000

George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who provided abortion services that included potentially illegal late-term abortions, has been gunned down in a drive-by shooting this morning. The police issued a description of the suspect:

a white male in his 50's, balding with gray hair last seen traveling west bound on 13th in a 1993 powder blue Ford Taurus, with tag 2-2-5-B-A-B and possibly a K-State vanity plate.

If what Tiller did was illegal, justice should have caught up with him and shoved him in jail. Shooting from a car is typical of gangsters and terrorists, not civilized human beings. I understand the motivations and reasoning of both camps, and I see both extremes which I equally despise.

As I haven't heard of pro-choicers firebombing churches or murdering ardent pro-lifers, count me in the choice camp until further notice. No further correspondence will be entered into. Suck it up.

Update 1: despicable stumentalization of this tragedy for cheap political points by the Daily Kos.

Update 2: Too little, too late, too obvious. Condemn and discipline those who mislead women, lie, intimidate and cry "holocaust", then I'll believe you have the backbone to face the issue as mature and respectful beings. The ultra-liberals lie and mislead too, that's why I don't buy their rhetoric either.

When they came for the stupid, I said nothing.

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Sat, 30 May 2009 21:45:00 +0000

There is nothing scarier than a paternalistic government system that believes it knows best. Case-in-point: British social services shattering a family with the complicity of the court system, simply because the mother is deemed literally too stupid to bring the baby up.

The same system that failed Baby P scores of times, the same system whose mention chills law-abiding parents' spines, this system today deprives Rachel of her child and forbids all further contact. Adding insult to injury, she was denied the right to have a lawyer of her choosing represent her during the court hearings. No surprise, then, when the court agreed it was in everyone's interest for the baby to be placed for adoption.

In all honesty, I respect and admire social workers and family courts, most of them at least. Those who do their job properly rescue children from harm and ensure their welfare. What makes me boil is the top-down, box-ticking and target-peddling system they are forced to work in, the assumption of infallibility the government fosters in its employees and the defencelessness of the common man against this onslaught. Every government office in Britain should hang a plaque bearing the inscription "You are the government. F**k off and die."

The family is sacred. Every social worker (however professional), every self-righteous judge, every unelected civil servant must get it into their thick skulls that if there is any way to keep the family whole, government must back out and die. Rachel's family seem perfectly capable of helping out, additional tutoring for the baby could be arranged at the council's expense. Instead we are left with a humiliated mother, a distraught baby, the right to a fair hearing buried and the bitter aftertaste of knowing the mediocrity we've slipped into.

Where's your peace now?

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:15:00 +0000

Posturing without any real need to do so can mean only one thing: North Korea is serious about holding the western world to ransom. This outcome has been wholly predicted as far back as 1953 by the leaders of the western intervention force, so we are witnessing yet again a "told you so" moment which history offers us a wide selection of.

The frustration one should legitimately feel is compounded by the obvious misery of knowing we've consistently worked toward this outcome. With our short-sighted policies, naivety and fear of being judged disguised as pragmatism we weaved a chaotic web characterized by giant gaping holes. A temptation hard to resist for many a populist leader, let alone a maniac well past his sell-by date.

Unlike 1953, however, we are faced with an entirely different East Asia. Former nuclear superpower Russia abandoned communism and world domination through brute force. China, at the time atomically unarmed, dictates local geopolitics from the economic and military bully pulpits. Our close allies in the region look to us for help instead of arming themselves in turn. This is a duty the United States cannot afford to dodge.

North Korea's lesson to the world is that multilateralism rarely works. The unpalatable alternative is a world policeman who can wield a whip, crack it and inflict pain if necessary. In the age of globalization, peacekeeping and "Hope and Change" we will be crudely reminded time and time again of the inherent imperfection of human nature. North Korea, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Burma: diplomacy won't work forever on them, if at all. The rule of force, realization of one's own vulnerability and the fear of pain are among the basic instincts we inherited from our common simian ancestor. Today, those instincts are all that stands between us and a potential nuclear attack from North Korea.

What's to be done? Cuetting aid and imposing sanctions will achieve nothing. The country is starved to death anyway and the leadership is uncaring. Kim Jong Il needs to be told in no ambiguous terms that his life is dispensable, the US will have no hesitation in nuking the country to hell and that he has blown his chances. The diplomatic table must be closed, nuclear subs sent to the Korean Sea and Yongbyon blasted to kingdom come without warning or regret. If Mr Kim were to carry out his threat of renouncing the armistice, we need to finish the business started in 1950 and take no prisoners.

Pyongyang is not worth trading for Tianjing or Khabarovsk. Mr Obama, for the good of us all please crack that whip.

Russia postures on the Arctic

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:23:00 +0000

Russia beats the war drum over the Arctic, and hardly anyone, me included, can be bothered. First and foremost all the Arctic countries that are not Russia are under the US nuclear umbrella. Ergo, unlike environmentalist nuts like David Suzuki and despite Medvedev's name meaning "bear man", the Russians will never exchange the population of a middle-sized city for a piece of land that's under ice, water, polar bears and a logistical nightmare.

Furthermore, Canada has nothing to fear as Russia will find its friendship convenient for international shipping negotiations in the Northeast and Northwest passages. Sometimes it does pay to have a possessive superpower on your borders, provided you are ready to wave your weapons in return if the neighbor gets a little too friendly and enters your airspace.

There are also rumors of a joint continental shelf submission by Canada, Russia and Denmark. That would save everyone a lot of hassle, but clearly the battle for the Arctic has begun. The damn thing needs to be carved up and stewarded as national territory and property, otherwise it'll be the tragedy of the commons all over again. Russia encircles half of the Arctic already and nothing can stop it destroying the wilderness if it so wished.

So if we want to save the polar bear we have to agree who owns what, and that is better done between five foreign ministers in a room than at the UN. And don't worry about the Russians. When their army isn't made of 18-year-old conscripts, it's underfunded, under-equipped volunteers and rusting nuclear warheads.

The fine line between justified rage and the lynch mob

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:05:00 +0000

Behold the sanctimonious preaching of austerity and sacrifice in the name of public service ethics, coming from the pulpit of often overpaid, often overconfident and at times pretentious fact-guzzling agenda-regurgitating coverage-craving media HQ knobs.

The United Kingdom is in a stir, as details of some MPs' lavish expense claims are laid bare by the Daily Telegraph. From elephant lamps to mahogany trouser presses, Christmas lights, chocolate Santas, repairs in riviera houses and fake mortgage payments Labour, Conservative and LibDem members of the Commons have milked the taxpayer-funded second homes allowance for all its worth. Some even refurbished properties at the HoC expense in order to rent them out at a higher price and move on.

It is amusing how MPs took out mortgages on their London properties, assuming perhaps that they'd stay in Westminster for a long time to come. No less amusing is the journalistic feigned outrage, because as Stephen Fry aptly puts it, everyone has fiddled expenses at some point in their lives.

An MP's job (if it's a good MP we are talking about) involves putting up with whip bullying, constituents' nagging, media intrusion, family division, endless committee boredom and being caught in crossfire day after day. Such a job begs for good compensation for London standards or extensive perks, and I would gladly choose the former. Yet the lynchmob mentality the media fuels risks denuding MPs of some reasonable allowance leeway without handing anything in return, in a "take one for the team" mentality brewed in the dim-witted work-shy envious and looting slums of human thought.

Would you accept a 60k taxable wage requiring you to quit your current job as some demand, run your life in two separate places, travel extensively, be often away from your family, take collective blame for your party's failings and putting up with a barrage of opposing requests and expectations satisfying ALL of which is almost a prerequisite for keeping the job in the first place? Neither would I.

The expense system has been abused, and perpetrators should definitely be sanctioned. But David Cameron leading by example should also draw a line in the sand, precisely where what's fair for the public and what's fair for the MP to expect meet.

Conservative attack ads review

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:56:00 +0000

So the Conservative Party has unleashed the campaigning machine on Michael Ignatieff, who is supposed to be the Liberal Party's messiah. The attack ads in English and French (which can be viewed here) are aimed mostly at his absence from Canada, his unflattering quotes about Canada and Quebec and his lack of policy on the economy.

I think Ignatieff's previous disdainful writings should come back and bite him, as what goes around comes around. Some of the ads definitely rock, but I'd like to offer some constructive criticism. I take the "What makes us Canadian" ad as the gold standard, because it is great!

Exhibit A: Country (EN). Efficient in portraying flipping loyalties, though as an immigrant myself I think it is good practice to be loyal to the country that hosts you. Should have focused more on the quotes about how Quebec is no different from Minnesota except for signage, or how of Canada he only missed Algonquin park.

Exhibit B: Arrogance (EN). The Algonquin quote is out of context here, being cosmopolitan isn't a sin and sometimes people can be derogatory to themselves for fun. Ignatieff is elitist, and that would have worked much better.

Exhibit C: Economy (EN). Good attack ad, but the "invisible man" quote should have been voiced and prominent. The French version is absolutely fantastic: no policy and lots of taxes, clear and snippy.

Exhibit D: Hypocrisy (EN) (FR). Just! Plain! Useless! An attack ad against attack ads, and the French version is mute. Give me a break! At least three other Tories are incensed: Raphael Alexander, Hugh MacIntyre and Gerry Nicholls, while Darryl Wolk is of the contrary opinion.

Exhibit E: Quad (FR). An attack ad on Ignatieff's policy and sayings on Quebec. You know what? It's a good one!

Exhibit F: Photo (FR). Rubbish. One good jab and three random swing-and-amiss that do more damage than good. Leaving Canada for 34 years is no sin per se, attachment to the country where you live is expected by Conservatives of new immigrants, while ridiculing someone for speaking Parisian instead of Quebec French paints you both as a redneck and an anathema to Acadians. Attack ad FAIL.

All in all a fairly average array of attack multimedia. Some of it "ouch", however I expect more. The "What makes us Canadian" ad is fantastic because it appeals to Canadians' pride in their history and country, shattering that with Ignatieff's name. We need to tap into this pride and this joy of being Canadian, and that's the kind of message that will take us to a majority government.

Luca has landed

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:53:00 +0000

I will probably get accused of obnoxious bragging, but I landed as a Permanent Resident at 8.30 PM today (Friday). Which not only makes me a new immigrant, but also the happiest person on this planet right now.

Big thanks are in order to all those who helped me put together the application, wrote recommendation letters, proofread my french and endured months of stressed pacing around the office or the apartment.

And absolutely monumental thanks go to Immigration-Quebec and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They are living proof (in my case) that government agencies can provide an absolutely spotless, responsive, predictably reliable service. My case was finalized in a flash, and I'm grateful for all the dedication that those people show for their jobs.

Who needs the Olympic Committee's blessing?

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:18:00 +0000

First the EU bans seal products, then the House of Commons proposes that seal pelts be incorporated into the Canadian Olympic uniform. Today we hear from the head of the Canadian Olympic Committee that the uniforms aren't changing and the event won't be used for any political purpose. What's more, we saw even more reasons to have an elected Senate and throw out the encroached Liberals:

According to the Parliament's record, South Shore-St. Margaret MP Gerald Keddy charged that Liberal Senator Mac Harb even wrote a letter to all members of the European Parliament to vote against the Canadian seal hunting industry. Keddy said Harb called Canadians barbaric because of their support for the seal hunt and advised Canada against pursuing international action at the World Trade Organization.

I have a solution. We needn't use the official Olympic event when we have all of Vancouver vying for business. Let's have a massive multi-culturalist-ultra-PC celebration of everything Inuit (as I assume seal products and meat are a constituent part of their heritage). Fashion showcases by Inuit designers, Inuit crafts including sealskin boots and coats, street selling of yummy seal-based food out of giant smoking cauldrons, Newfoundlanders selling seal-hunting tours (strictly shooting only). What a party!

Got seal?

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:20:00 +0000

I endorse the principle of seal hunting. The means can and should be improved, but banning the product in the EU will do no good to improve hunting methods. Actually, faced with decreasing revenue it will be more economically sound for hunters to cut even more corners.

The CBC reports some fears that are easily assuaged:

While it allows for the continued shipment of seal products through Europe, promotion of those same products would be prohibited. Sealing industry experts fear that would shut off access to the runways of Italy and France, countries that are highly influential in determining global fashion trends in the larger markets of Russia and China.

The beauty of free globalized trade is our ability to sell the skins elsewhere, like countries where tigers are hunted for their penis. In addition, the Italian and French fashion shops can open up showrooms and production lines in countries which can appreciate the amazing comfort, warmth and durability of sealskin products. As everything else coming out of Brussels lately it's a feeble, useless and embarrassing policy.

Long live globalization, free trade, capitalism and the WTO!

Update: Dr Roy reminds how pathetic the EU's excuses are.

You can toast with Berlusconi too

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:23:00 +0000

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.

Tough choices for Gordon Brown

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:59:00 +0000

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.

Take extra care and brace for impact

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:31:00 +0000

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.

NOT a pandemic yet

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:19:00 +0000

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):

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.

Why Brits should invest in Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:14:00 +0000

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.

What a stupid reason to squabble!

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:30:00 +0000

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!

Absur-ban 2

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:45:00 +0000

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

What game is Iran playing?

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:40:00 +0000

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.

Chechen war is over, kind of

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:58:00 +0000

As the anti-terrorism provisions are lifted, Chechnya can look forward to a more normal life and, hopefully, some development thank to its strategic position on the Caspian oil pathway. From today the region also regains most of the autonomy it lost in the late 1990s.

I doubt it will make good use of it. For one, its President Ramzan Kadyrov is a panderer to Sharia law and to the more radical Muslim factions, in an effort to keep powerful tribal clans from supporting the rebel forces. Being on the border with Georgia doesn't help, as the smuggling activities will fuel crime and, by consequence, the rebels. Chechnya is still a gunpowder barrel and no amount of control, armed or otherwise, can bring it to normality. Deportation hardly worked during Stalin's times, and that's enough said.

The war is over, but peace is still a distant prospect.

Oh, pleeeeease!

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:45:00 +0000

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.

Prisoner by own fault

noreply@blogger.com (Luca Manfredi) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:36:00 +0000

I'm sick of whiners who get in trouble and expect the world to come to their rescue. What I'm even sicker of is bleeding hearts with salami slices for blinkers who arrogantly guilt trip others into helping the whiners.

Nathalie Morin married an illegal immigrant, had a child with him and then moved with him to Saudi Arabia. Now she realizes her husband ain't a prince charming but a prince beating, that she's a prisoner in her own home and she can't leave the country. Her bleeding heart mother appeals to bleeding heart naive liberals and wants to sue the government for not doing enough to secure her daughter's release.

Everything that's happening over there is Saudilogically legal, and since she walked into that snake pit voluntarily, we can do nothing but keep asking the Saudis politely to make an exception to their law. Invoking the Charter and human rights is no use, as Canadian law applies in Canada only. To deny or ignore this simple reality is stupid.

I feel for Morin, and I hope the Saudis can be made to reason. The Government is powerless as nothing illegal was done to take her there, and she is outside our jurisdiction. The only way for the Government to do more is to invade Saudi Arabia, and we know the liberal attitude when push comes to shove.

If I were the mother, I'd hire a SWAT team. Sadly, cojones and initiative are not virtues by whiners held.