Stud Lee

2003-06-06T15:14:00.000-04:00

Drug Industry

Colby Cosh links and comments on this article by Derek Lowe about how a lot of Americans are going up to Canada to buy the same drugs there because they are cheaper. He basically suggests that we shouldn’t follow the Canadian drug plan model because it doesn’t lead to ingenuity in the end.

Well, I think he does a good job of explaining this position and I agree with him in several respects, except for one major point: to my knowledge, the Canadian Government does not subsidize drugs. At least, that is what a pharmacist friend told me. I may have to double check on that, but I was always under the impression that lower liability insurance was the cause of the lower prices in Canada.

Colby also ends with a good point:

Perhaps we'll legislate the drugs to be cheap as they are in Canada, oh happy day. But before we do that, I'd like for people to know that I work with a number of talented Canadian researchers. We have folks from Newfoundland to Vancouver; all I have to do is go up and down the hall to cover the whole country. Doubtless several of them would prefer to have stayed and worked in the country they grew up in. It's not like Canada lacks the infrastructure--there are plenty of high tech companies up there, of course. But those companies are allowed to charge what they think the market will bear. What Canada doesn't have, for some reason, is a drug industry.

I couldn’t agree with this any more. Canada, for as advanced a nation as it is, has little drug industry. I’m speaking as someone who used to work in the Canadian healthcare field and who still has contacts (i.e. family members) in it. I’ll give one example. My father is good friends with a CEO of a Canadian start-up drug company based in Edmonton. For the sake of anonymity, I will not mention the name of the company. This firm had some really promising research, especially in the cancer field. The problem was the lack of funding. They just couldn’t get enough capital from within Canada to fund their research, so branched out to the US and Europe for money. While the company is still based in Edmonton, they do a lot of their R&D in the US (in Central New Jersey, to be more specific) now.

Point is that Canadian start-ups don’t have the right climate to thrive up there, so they must branch out or even relocate to other places to garner more success. Canada does lag behind other nations when it comes to drug-related research; the US, Europe (more specifically Germany, the UK and Switzerland) and even Japan have been doing some great things in the pharmaceutical industry. Quite a tragedy, really, considering it’s a waste of so much potential.

Update: Just heard from a very reliable source that the company is in a lot of trouble and has been losing a lot of money since its conception. Also, they never really had a large US presence to begin with, just an office to attract investment.

Now, in no way shape or form am I suggesting that the fact that the majority of this company’s operations are in Canada is the cause of its financial malaise. But I do find it somewhat interesting that a pharmaceutical company can be losing so much money as they are traditionally stable and profitable. This is, indeed, perplexing.

2003-05-26T12:36:00.000-04:00

Apologies

Sorry again for taking this long to post something. Last week was quite hectic.

In any case, it is a completely miserable day here in New York. It’s absolutely drenching with rain, and we’re talking about the heavy downpour type. Not only that, I recently found out that I did not get that one job I had the interview for. I thought the interview went well, though brief as I only met up with the human resources manager, but I guess they didn’t think I had the right background for the job. I’m somewhat bummed out about it as it was a good job, but I didn’t particularly want to work in Lower Manhattan again. At least not until the new WTC is on its way to being completed.

Also been having some girl troubles recently. That’s probably been downing me the most.

2003-05-16T18:08:00.000-04:00

Leaving Paradise?

This is a great link from Marmot’s Hole about South Korean emigration to Western countries like the U.S. Having spent a great deal of time in Korea last summer and knowing quite a few Korean friends, I can say with pretty good certainty that the contents of this article are indeed true.

My trip to Korea last summer was eye-opening on many fronts. Not only was it the only place where I experienced overt racism, but it was also the only other place (aside from Canada) where I saw the clearest examples of blatant hypocrisy.

Koreans, as a whole, are atrociously culturally aware and very proud people. This pride often borders xenophobia, especially among the younger generations. The “anti-American” protests that plagued South Korea last fall are case and point. I have a difficult time believing this sentiment is merely based on past actions by the “American imperialists” as most foreigners (I’m a Canadian national as well) of any background do feel somewhat uncomfortable and have felt in some way the racist tendencies of many in Korea.

This is what makes this article ever the more ironic – if Koreans are supposed to be a proud people and proud of their culture (and those protests alluded to this), then why are so many of them leaving in drones?

Upon closer inspection of the article, you’ll notice that the people who are emigrating are of the upper class and of about middle age. Indeed, most of my friends remaining in Korea fit this category.

Some of my best friends in college were from Korea and were pretty well-to-do. I went to Korea to visit one of them last summer and I was quite shocked at their reactions and feelings towards his homeland. Most people of that group I spoke to were completely fed up with the way of life there. Indeed, Korea can be a stressful place. In a nutshell, it’s crowded, working there entails long hours and it’s an extremely competitive place. And I won’t even go into the details of the rigorous school system there which has led to a fairly high suicide rate among the youth. Ultimately, most of my friends there longed for an easier pace of life and wanted to leave. My friend from college only went back because his parents cut off his funding because they were worried that he would never leave Canada and go back to Korea.

Again, one of my friends here is a paralegal for a Korean immigration lawyer in Flushing, Queens, which has large Korean population. He tells me that almost all of the people who come in on education visas overstay their visas. Because the INS (I guess now the Department of Homeland Security, since they took over that agency) doesn’t perceive Koreans as a threat to national security and because Koreans are generally hard-working, productive and law-abiding people, they don’t really care about the overstay and they let them be.

Personally, I don’t really view it as a problem for the US. In fact, it’s probably a great boon to this society as I feel Koreans have much to offer and will ultimately make this country a better place. I admire them in many ways and, of course, I absolutely love Korean food and think Korean girls are attractive.

This is a problem for Korea, however. With the wealthy, innovative and most educated class leaving the country, it doesn’t bode too well for Korea's future. This especially true if you’re left with the dregs, such as those protestors.

It’s very indicative of Korea today and one of the reasons I think Roh Min-hyun was elected.

This is bitter-sweet for me. I love Korea as a country and think it’s an incredible place with a lot of potential and I am saddened to see some of the best of that nation leave. On the other hand, I completely welcome them into this country with open arms. As I mentioned above, I believe they have much to offer to this society and will make the US and whatever other country they choose to go to a better place in the short term and long. The fact that it is now the upper and innovative class rather now than the lower coming here only will only improve our fortunes.

Welcome aboard!

2003-05-14T19:48:00.000-04:00

A Little Warning!

And if you guys wanna see what I look like, here is a pic. Don't say I didn't warn you!

2003-05-14T19:32:00.000-04:00

Sorry!

Apologies, my friends, for not posting for such a while. Things have been atrociously busy the last little while and I’ve been in and out of town for the last two weeks.

Unfortunately, it seems that the move to Newark has fallen through, but it doesn’t mean I won’t be moving to NJ solo in the near future. It has to do with my friend not wanting a roommate and wanting to go on his own. Sucks, but that’s life.

In other news, I have an interview next week with a company that does financial services research. That’s cool because research is more up my ally and I vastly enjoy doing that more than anything else, especially if it puts me out of the spotlight -- I like being in the background more than anything. This company seems really good, but it is based in Lower Manhattan and I am, admittedly, paranoid about working there again. Chalk it up to obvious bad memories (i.e. 9/11). I would prefer working in New Jersey or Long Island, but if this turns out to be a good opportunity, I would be stupid to turn it down. Then again, this job deals mostly with communications technology, which I know next to nothing about. I just hope the interview goes well and that is all I can ask for.

But much has gone on in my absence. Apparently, my favorite columnist, Mark Steyn, was fired by the National Post, which was my favorite Canadian daily. I guess I won’t be checking it out as often anymore. It’s sad because it was once the lone bastion of common sense in the Canadian media, but that has quickly changed since Leftist media mongrel Izzy Asper bought the paper. So much has been said about Steyn’s dismissal that I won’t bother commenting further.

Also, Pieter talks about Canadian and US competitiveness. I agree with his comments wholeheartedly and will not be adding any more to what he’s already said because he’s done an outstanding job of touching base on everything already.

So, you will see more posting. Apparently, much has been going on in Korea and I will try to comment on that.

2003-05-01T19:36:00.000-04:00

Ewwww!

Got this link from Tony. I think my title says it all...*shudder*

2003-05-01T19:29:00.000-04:00

Tit for Tat

Much has been made about the new motion by France, German, Belgium and Luxemburg to create a new defense arrangement (Link via. Steven Den Beste). Quite honestly, I am not too surprised that they would go ahead with such an idea. After all, these were vehemently against the war and France, the lead instigator of this, pulled out just about all stops to prevent the war from happening. They’re pissed and this is probably the best way to vent themselves. Besides, it’s difficult to say whether their intentions are serious or half-hearted.

This, however, comes as a complete surprise. The gist of this article is that Italy, Spain and Britain are alarmed by France and her friends’ proposal and are threatening to form a defense alliance of their own.

All is not well in the EU “family”, it appears.

Personally, I find France’s actions to be hypocritical and downright divisive. They, for one, publicly chided EU members (and prospective members) for siding with the US in the Iraq crisis. One of their major complaints was that theses “rogue” nations were not acting as party of the “family”.

So what is the EU “family”?

From Chirac’s earlier remarks, it seems to be anything that revolves around France and the EU’s ability to act in France’s whim. Hardly the multilateral and cohesive engine that it was first conceived to be.

Many have mentioned that France has lost a lot of say in the world and they’re using multilateral institutions like the UN and EU to magnify their power. France is a veto-wielding Security Council member, but it only has something like 55 million people. India, Bangladesh, Japan, Brazil and Pakistan have around a hundred million people or more, yet they have little say of what goes on in the Security Council and are, in effect, powerless in the UN mold. Australian PM John Howard is even quoted as saying (links don’t work anymore) that France should be replaced by another country (he suggested either India or Japan) which has a large population and a more relevant and realistic approach to world affairs.

The UN and the Security Council are products of WWII and really need to be restructured to represent the changing face of threats in this dynamic, yet unstable world. India, though still poor, has grown into a technological powerhouse and possesses a powerful army, as well as nuclear weapons. Japan is an economic superpower and contributes more to the UN than any other nation aside from the US and their generosity should be rewarded accordingly.

What has France done and what do they contribute today?

Well, France’s (continuing) actions seem to threaten European and world stability. I don’t recall a time when the EU was as divided as it is today. If it gets to the point where two groups of nations within a single political union are proposing to create two different and, by definition opposing, military unions, then you know something is amiss.

I find both proposals to be quite silly, in all honesty. I think it’s just the result of a lot of accumulating hot air and rhetoric and it needs to be blown out in some way. After all, they are just proposals and negotiations and, so far, nothing has been set in stone.

But it all remains to be seen. If this “tit for tat” behavior continues in the long term, I don’t like the prospects of the EU surviving.

2003-05-01T17:22:00.000-04:00

New Blogs Added

Just added three new blogs the last couple of days: Madderblog (conservative Canadian who is an excellent writer and presents his views very well), Bigwhiteguy (a Canadian expat living in Hong Kong -- he's hillarious! A must read!!) and Marmot's Hole (American expat in Korea -- I'm totally enthralled with Korea and Korean politics, and he does an outstanding job of commenting on life there). Links are on the left, so do enjoy!

2003-04-29T20:57:00.000-04:00

SARS in Toronto: Continued…

I just found this blogger called Maderblog. I’m assuming he’s Canadian because he has a lot of topics on Canada. Anyways, he says that it’s not really a surprise that Toronto was affected much worse than other Western cities with huge Asian populations because the GTA area health officials didn’t really pay attention to the warnings about the disease sent out in February. He even links a Mark Steyn editorial on this topic.

Most of my family in Canada works in the healthcare field. For the most part, I think they’re quite competent in what they do. I do have this one cousin who is a doctor in BC that I’d never, ever, under any circumstances, even if it would save my life let treat me. I just don’t trust him and I don’t think he’s competent enough should be a doctor. But I’d feel very safe if cared by the rest.

One of my uncles is a leading neurological specialist in Toronto. He’s damn good at what he does. I haven’t heard from him in a while, so I don’t know the gist of the feeling among the Toronto medical community regarding SARS. I’d be curious to hear from him if Maderblog’s comments have any merit.

Nonetheless, given my experience with many Torontonians’ “my shit don’t stink” demeanor, Maderblog’s claims would not come as a complete surprise. Their reaction to the WHO’s travel advisory was pretty poor. And you can’t laud the Canadian Government’s handling of the case, which was atrocious. It also makes me wonder why the disease is so bad there compared to Vancouver, which has almost as large (larger in terms of proportions) an Asian population as Toronto. Maybe the BC health authorities paid better attention to begin with?

Makes you wonder…

2003-04-29T20:41:00.000-04:00

Correction

I spoke (stupid links not working again) the other day about the funding of Canada’s healthcare system. I basically said that the Federal Government wields too much control by attaching too many strings on the funding they provide. Well, I stand somewhat corrected. I spoke to my father -- a healthcare economist -- the other day and he told me that while the Federal Government does have some say in how the money should be spent, it isn’t nearly as much as the provinces claim. This is somewhat exaggerated by some of the premiers to reinforce public opinion to their camp. There are still some outstanding issues that must be solved and the provinces still want a greater say, but this isn’t as big an issue as it should be.

My father did mention though that provinces seem to be carrying a much greater burden of the healthcare costs these days compared to before. So maybe a burgeoning issue to be dealt with? Time will tell.

2003-04-27T23:45:00.000-04:00

Places in Newark, New Jersey?

One more thing to add for tonight. I mentioned before that I might be moving to New Jersey later this summer. Well, that "might" has turned into "definitely". I need some help finding an apartment. It looks like I'll be moving in the beginning of August. I’m specifically looking for a place in the city of Newark, preferably the Ironbound neighborhood, close to Seton Hall University. My future roommate will be going there for law school, so it’s more his request than mine, but Newark is much cheaper than Queens and I’d like to cut my rent bill substantially. Furthermore, Newark’s a pretty central location in Northern New Jersey and a good place to commute from.

Problem is that Newark has a bad reputation for crime and I’d like to be in a decent area of the city. If there is anyone familiar with that area of the city and its real estate, especially the Ironbound, please contact me!

Thanks!

2003-04-27T23:20:00.000-04:00

Been out of town for a few days and I just got back. I'll try to resume some posting tomorrow, but I've come back to a new host of responsibilities that must be taken care of by early this week.

Also, anyone know of a quick way to quit smoking? I'm been doing this much too heavily lately and I think it's about time to kick the habit. It’s also way too expensive in New York City now and I’m tired of having to go all the way to New Jersey to stock up.

Thanks!

2003-04-24T20:25:00.000-04:00

New Hosting

Also, some “administrative” news: I just found a free (just noticed I wrote "fee"!) web host and am in the beginning process of transferring my blog onto that site. It could take a few days (or possible weeks, if I get motivated enough!), but rest assured, you won’t be needing to gaze upon this hideous design again!

2003-04-24T20:20:00.000-04:00

In Addendum

Just adding to what I said below, Nicholas Packwood talks about the hypocrisy of the Canadian media and Canadians in general when dealing with international organizations:

CBC Newsworld has thrown all its anti-American driven support for the United Nations down the memory hole now that this same source of all international legitimacy should dare to question Canadian public policy. "Ha ha!" as Nelson might say. Less amusing is just how quickly this about face in Newsworld bias can go completely unremarked in whatever is left of Canadian independent media. Still less amusing is the impact on Toronto jobs from restaurants to theatre to hotels to cultural institutions and on and on.

I couldn’t agree with his words more.

Colby Cosh also comments:

For the individual traveller Toronto is obviously still a safe place to visit, but avoiding large gatherings there is probably not a bad idea; and the WHO has no mandate or reason to protect the economy or the reputation of any individual city. Isn't that sort of the idea behind having a World Health Organization? Funny how Canadians love squishy institutions of global governance until one of them acts the least bit peremptory towards them.

Yes, indeed!

Now why did Canada officially stay out of the war in Iraq? Because it didn't have UN approval. But when an international organization of just as big stature goes against something Canadian, it’s deemed “unacceptable”. Hmmm…double standard here?

And they say Americans are rogue? Pu-leeze!

2003-04-24T17:46:00.000-04:00

Canadian Healthcare: Unity and Identity

I’m a keen reader of the well-written and extremely thoughtful Innocents Abroad blog collective, which includes Canadian (and to my surprise, former fellow Albertan) Colin May. Colin is a Canadian blogger residing in Paris doing his PhD in Political Science, if I’m not mistaken. He tackles issues with wit and insight, combined with beautiful writing. It’s hard for me to disagree with many of his points as I see eye-to-eye with much of his commentary.

His latest essay on Canadian unity and identity is no exception and I think he is bang-on on with his assessment of the current Canadian political situation. I really have no need to comment on much of what he says because he does a much better job of outlining it than I ever could.

I would, however, like to add a few things regarding his comments on the Canadian healthcare system as I have some past work experience working in the field. I was a data analyst back in Canada and though I don’t consider myself intimately knowledgeable of the system and its innate workings as I worked mostly with individual case data, I think I have an idea of the general workings. I would leave the more detailed analysis to my father, a health care economist, or some of my other relatives who are employed in the Canadian medical system.

Constitutionally, healthcare is the province’s burden, but the reality is that the Federal Government has a large say in how funds are to be spent. But the basic premise is that the Federal Government gives the provinces money and by law, the Provincial Government must match the funds equally. In some cases, the Provincial Government actually spends more than the Federal contribution, but I don’t know any examples now as I’ve been out of this industry for some time.

This method of fund matching varies from province to province -- Alberta, for example, has the public pay monthly premiums, while some other provinces like Quebec cover the costs completely.

Colin is correct that Canada’s much touted health care system is experiencing problems right now. As a result of years of federal healthcare funding cuts and mismanagement, waiting lists can be quite long, hospitals are understaffed, research has dwindled and hospitals are lacking the latest medical equipment. It’s very telling when polls show that healthcare is the issue concerning most Canadians.

This is quite ironic as recent polls suggest Canada’s healthcare system as Canadians’ most identifying cultural feature.

The point is, the system is having problems and needs urgent care. The fact that SARS has been as problematic as it has in Toronto only reinforces this. The denials of the SARS problem also reinforce the denial of Canadian health officials of dealing with these issues.

How does this deal with unity and identity? Well, as Colin points out, the provinces now want an even greater say in how to run their systems. The Federal Government wields too much control over how to spend their money. As a concept, it is fair; after all it is their money, right? But what if the money for the provinces isn’t being spent in their best interests? And what if this is against the Canada Health Act? Alberta’s Premier Ralph Klein has been at the forefront demanding changes in provincial-federal relations on certain issues. While he mostly focuses on energy matters, healthcare spending has often come up. With the declining Canadian healthcare system and the inability of the provinces to deal with it, I can understand why this has spouted regionalism.

I completely sympathize with the province’s concerns. They’re not happy with how Ottawa is administering this system and demand a greater say. Indeed, I think it would be vastly more efficient if the provinces had a greater say in how to administer their funds. On the flipside, I can see the argument that the provinces having greater say in their own affairs undermines Canadian unity and identity and promotes regional factions. But if a bullying and controlling Federal Government is what represents the concept of Canada then is it not completely a sham?

People outside Alberta often criticize Ralph Klein for promoting Alberta’s interests over those of greater Canada. They claim he is a “threat to the nation” and “dangerous”. But what of the overzealous Federal Government’s aggressive jockeying in energy matters and healthcare spending? After all, in terms of health spending, it is the province’s job to administer the system, right?

1. Public Administration (section 8)
The public administration criterion, set out in section 8 of the Canada Health Act, applies to provincial and territorial health care insurance plans. The intent of the public administration criterion is that the provincial and territorial health care insurance plans be administered and operated on a non-profit basis by a public authority, accountable to the provincial or territorial government for decision making on benefit levels and services, and whose records and accounts are publicly audited.

Regional infighting is endemic in Canada today. At first it was Quebec, but now it’s spreading west to Alberta and Saskatchewan. The sad truth remains that many in Canada’s power corridor (Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal) are grossly ignorant to what’s going on outside their confines. While people there maybe content, elsewhere they are not. And it all goes back to the healthcare system, Canada’s biggest source of pride. If this troubled system, which is causing much regionalism and infighting, is the biggest identifier of a nation, then it certainly speaks volumes of “unity” and does not bode well for the future.

2003-04-23T22:28:00.000-04:00

Pariah City: Toronto and SARS

Just Today, the WHO recommended that people avoid going to the city of Toronto unless absolutely necessary for fears of contracting that dreaded SARS virus. The Toronto and Canadian reaction were typical. Of course, this announcement sparked outrage and many Toronto and Canadian health officials are condemning the WHO and accusing them of jumping the gun. Why? “Because it could never happen in Canada. Nothing bad ever happens in Canada, especially Toronto.”

This latest announcement evokes mixed emotions for me. For one thing, my sister lives in Toronto for nine months of the year as she attends university there. I also have quite a few family members and friends residing in that city. On the other hand, I find many Torontonians to be conceited and arrogant and this warning might put them in their place a bit.

I have a like-hate relationship with Toronto. I lived there for a few months a couple of years ago. Toronto is regarded as the “center of Canada” where “everything happens”. And indeed, it is in many respects. It is the commercial, media, financial, philosophical and transportation hub of the country. Virtually everyone who is anyone in Canada happens to be based in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). Indeed, Toronto’s importance to Canada has promoted the sense of self-aggrandizement to stratospheric proportions. There is even a saying over there that “Toronto is the center of the universe.”

I first liked Toronto. Indeed, there are many things admirable about it and it isn’t all bad. It’s relatively clean; safe; quite multicultural; has nice restaurants; has a nice harbor front; everything is relatively new; the infrastructure is very good; great strip clubs and prostitution; has a decent public transportation system and an efficient though increasingly clogged, road system. It’s basically Canada’s version of New York and Torontonians like to term themselves as “New York run by the Swiss.”

Sounds like a paradise, right?

On the other hand while it’s not a horrible place, Toronto isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. The city has become increasingly congested; the public transportation system is inadequate for a city of that size (almost five million); the homeless problem is astounding (much worse than anything I’ve seen in New York and we’re supposed to be in “crisis mode” here); the weather is awful in the winter; it’s outrageously expensive; lacks any real “culture” or identity; can be boring as there isn’t that much to do; it’s “ghettoized” in the sense that the multicultural groups don’t really mix too much; it can be dangerous (Jane and Finch intersection quickly comes to mind); the dating scene sucks; and the people…oh, don’t let me get started about the people!

You could say that my main problem with Toronto is the people who live there and their self-righteous smugness. I travel a lot and I think I can get a good sense of the people in each place I go to and, in my opinion, I have never met a more arrogant bunch than I have in Toronto. Now don’t get me wrong, I have met some great people there, but the prevailing attitude I find is one of self-importance, haughtiness and ostentation.

With that attitude, it’s safe to assume that the rest of Canada somewhat views Toronto as a pariah. And, indeed, that is the case, especially out West in Alberta and Saskatchewan. You can say that there’s not much real love lost between the GTA and the rest of the country. It’s somewhat similar to the US’s love-hate relationship with New York, but it runs much deeper than that because deep down inside Americans don’t really hate New York and there isn’t as much regionalism here compared to Canada. We are all Americans, after all.

I can go into countless reasons for this, but that would involve writing a major essay. But to sum it all up, the rest of the country does not like Toronto’s smugness and considers the city to be a leech on their resources without giving much in return.

Now we have this SARS epidemic and it seems to be hitting the GTA quite hard. If it wasn’t that bad, then the WHO and numerous foreign governments wouldn’t have issued advisories against travel. Toronto officials claim to have a handle on the problem, but today’s latest fatality seems to prove otherwise.

This has all but embedded Toronto’s perception as a recluse city. They were hated enough before, but now things will increase multifold.

Unlike New York after 9/11, people, especially Canadians, won’t feel the desire to go into Toronto and support their Canadian “brethren”. It could be that SARS is a continuing event and there are the risks of contagiousness. It also might revolve around the fact that there really isn’t anything to do in Toronto, nor much to see. Toronto also doesn’t have any real historical value for Canada In many ways; Toronto doesn’t really represent nor have any symbol that is “Canadian” for fellow Canadians to go and flock to and support. Sure, there’s the CN Tower, but that’s just a stupid pole and many Torontonians themselves are aghast by the structure’s phallic repulsiveness. This is a fake city that tries to manufacture an image for itself.

And then, of course, it could all be about the people

I can’t say I feel all that sorry about it. I feel bad that people are dying and I am concerned about my friends and relatives living there. On the flipside, however, I can’t help but think of the comments I heard from many Canadians suggesting that my city, New York City, was deserving of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Yes, I know many, many Canadians and Torontonians were supportive of the US after 9/11. But there were a good deal of them who were not and Toronto is the epicenter of this type of thinking. Think GTA Liberal MP Carolyn “Americans are bastards and I hate them all” Parrish. She wouldn’t have been elected if the majority of people in her riding didn’t agree with her views.

The effects well be hard felt, but maybe -- just maybe – it will open Torontonians’ eyes and get them to change their attitudes to unfasten themselves from their “high morality” perch. But, alas, you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

Welcome to “Pariah City”.

2003-04-22T21:22:00.000-04:00

US-Canada Relations

I’m somewhat back from my hiatus. I’ll comment on something that Tony said in his wonderful blog (nice new design, by the way!) about the state of US-Canada relations.

However, I don't think the Liberal Party should feel any surprise that it's currently being snubbed by Washington. And it's not due to some sort of personal pique, as this column would imply. Instead, there appears to be a growing perception down here, whether true or not, that the Liberal party is rife with anti-Americanism of near-endemic proportions.

[…]

During all this, I never noticed Chretien reining in any of the remarks by his party. I figure Chretien would have more power to impose party discipline, in light of Canada's parliamentary system. But, he has chosen not to exercise it.

Far as I'm concerned, Canadian-American relations can pretty much run on autopilot until next February, when Chretien retires.

I agree with much of what Tony says. Chretien did not make any attempt to quell the outspoken anti-Americanism prevalent in his cabinet. If anything, he did quite the opposite. Anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics knows that party loyalty reigns supreme and that these comments wouldn’t have been made if they weren’t approved or at least agreed upon by the man in charge. This isn’t just about a few loud backbenchers – it’s more to do with the party culture and the genuine feelings of the Prime Minister.

It also doesn’t help, nor say much, that Chretien went out of his way to quash any comments directed against his decision.

Chretien and Bush have had cool relations since day one. There are many reasons for this, but it’s probably largely due to ideological differences. Chretien is extremely liberal while Bush is a staunch conservative. Chretien also made comments before Bush’s election victory that he wanted to see Gore as the winner. It’s poor politics and it’s come back to bite him in the ass.

Where Tony and I differ in opinion is that he suggests (though not overtly) that US-Canada relations will probably improve once Chretien retires. I disagree with that. Personally, I think the damage is done and it will take a while to heal this rift. I don’t think that things will improve when the “big man” leaves office, if he ever does. Chretien is a megalomaniac and he absolutely loves power and isn’t afraid to wield it. Why do you think he sacked of Finance Minister Paul Martin after he criticized Chretien? The man will not stand dissent and I’m hardly convinced that he’s really ready to leave office, especially since over half the population actually approve of the way he’s handled the Iraq situation, regardless of how slimy and dishonest it was.

A lot of Canadians think that Paul Martin, largely assumed to be the man to replace Chretien, will be the “savior” of Canada. Since when? Martin has largely agreed with Chretien since his dismissal. I also have trouble with someone who believes he is entitled to be a leader. The man suffers from “Al Gore” syndrome, if you ask me. It is very dangerous to have such a person in power.

As I mentioned before (blogger links are messed up, so I won’t bother linking right now), I think Canada’s only shot of repairing relations is to go with the Canadian Alliance. They are more ideologically similar with the current US Administration than any other party in Canada, especially the Liberals. Sure, there are some conservatives and moderates in the Liberal Party like John Manley, who is also gunning for the leadership position, but they don’t have a voice in or much influence in the grand scheme of things. I said below (sorry about not providing the link again, but I’m still trying to switch over to MT) that I if I would have one person in the Liberal Party lead Canada, it would be Manley. But, alas, I am a realist and I see the chances of this happening as slim to none.

I think that Bush should just let relations slide and assume that things won’t improve with Paul Martin in charge. Bad US-Canada relations would be really hurtful for Canada (it would hurt us too, but much less so), but it is something that needs to happen for Canadians to wake up and realize who their friends are. A lot of Canadians actually believe in the Liberal Party mandate, and that includes these silly outbursts by dim-witted Liberal and NDP MP’s. You’d be surprised how quick many Canadians jump to believe even the most nonsensical conspiracy theories if only to place the US in a less than favorable light. And these are supposed to be our friends? Don’t think so!

I’m saying this as a Canadian who still has family there. I don’t want to see Canada suffer as it would affect my family, but something needs to happen to wake Canadians up and get them to their senses. I haven’t seen anything recently to suggest they are about to do so. If anything, it’s been quite the opposite.

2003-04-15T18:53:00.000-04:00

Apologies for not writing so much the last few days! I’ve been sick – again – and I’m only now starting to feel better. Besides, there's not too much else to discuss with the war virtually over and the fallout being covered by so many others in far more eloquent and intelligent ways than I could ever do. I also had trouble with my taxes and that’s taken a lot of time. I’m still not sure I did it right either, but we’ll see. I’m not getting as much of a return (if any) as I thought I would. This is surprising considering that I didn't work the salaried job the full year and if you don't you usually get a massive refund. I must have done something wrong! Luckilly, I have e-filing.

It was a busy week-end for me and I was in New Jersey for much of it. I’ve decided to move to New Jersey over the summer. I love Queens and all, but Jersey rent is just so much cheaper, the taxes are lower and the job prospects and that much better. Besides, my friend got a good deal on an apartment over there and I’ll probably end up rooming with him. It’s the first time I ever had a roommate, so it should be interesting. He’s a really cool guy and we get along great so everything should be fine.

Anyways, I have until the end of the month to make my decision if I will room with my friend and it’s most likely that I accept. So that means I will probably move there in August as that’s when the apartment becomes available.

Life won’t be too different, I suppose. I like New Jersey and think it’s a good place to live. And where I would live is actually closer to the City than when I am right now. I will miss my neighborhood a lot though.

In any case, blogging will be light for the next few days until I get some shit together.

2003-04-12T00:54:00.000-04:00

SARS: Worth the Fuss?

I found this website that goes into some of the details about SARS and shows that the disease doesn’t really live up to the hype that the media is giving it. Apparently, in Hong Kong, most of the fatalities have been elderly with the average age being 65 and of those the majority have had some history of previous chronic illness.

We also know from the comments of Dr Margaret Chan (Director of Department of Health) to Amcham (American Chamber of Commerce) – sorry, no online link available – that of the first 17 deaths 11 were aged 65 or over, and 14 had pre-existing chronic illnesses. The three without pre-existing illnesses delayed seeking treatment until after having symptoms for more than a week. Dr Chan noted that for those seeking treatment within the first days of showing symptoms and who had no pre-existing chronic illness the treatment regime has been show to be extremely effective.

Doesn’t seem to be cause of much concern, does it? I don’t know, perhaps not. Maybe this has been blown totally out of proportion by the media and this disease isn’t half as bad as it’s made out to be.

I can’t confirm or deny either way as I’m not a health and disease expert, but I can say something from someone on the inside. A family friend is an administrator at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Kowloon. He says that most of the medical staff has contracted the disease and that all non-medical personnel are required to work at home now. The press hasn’t really mentioned anything about it, maybe because they don’t know. But if this fact was brought up, it would cause even more chaos than what we’ve been seeing already.

This is news that Hong Kong doesn’t need more of, but it’s difficult to imagine things being even worse than they already are. Indeed, I heard that the world famous Peninsula Hotel is currently at 4% occupancy. That’s horrible!

I cannot stress enough how sad I am to see Hong Kong in this state, especially since it really isn’t their fault. Like I’ve said below (linking doesn’t seem to be working as I write this), the PRC is completely to blame for this crisis. Again, I heard from my family friend that China is sending a lot of the people who contract the disease there over to Hong Kong and making the Hong Kong authorities deal with them. A criminal way of shunting the blame – and the disease at the same time – from them.

Thing is, they’re having a more than difficult enough time stopping the disease from spreading within their own borders. I also heard from my friend that they’ve closed two hospitals in Beijing (something else not reported in the media) and the disease is spreading like wildfire there. Now their government must do something.

I’m not that optimistic, unfortunately.

In any case, I think Hong Kong needs all the support it can get and reading that article above has given me some solstice about the disease and its transmissibility. So much so, that I’m thinking of heading over there in the summer for a little vacation. I was actually planning on taking a trip to South America, but Hong Kong really needs our support and tourist dollars now, so there is more urgency to go there. Besides, with nobody going, I’m sure I’ll find outstanding deals on world class hotels, discounts with the already world famous shopping and bargains on tickets to get there. Win-win-win as far as I’m concerned!

China, another country I love, will not be getting one red cent from me.

2003-04-10T02:40:00.000-04:00

And They Say Today's Immigrants Have No Loyalty?!

Eat this, mutherfuckers!

The world watched Wednesday as a Marine corporal clambered up a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and covered its face with an American flag just before the monument was pulled down and torn to pieces by cheering Iraqis.

Also looking on raptly was Cpl. Edward Chin's family in New York.

"I thought, 'Oh, my son, you are making history, you are part of the Iraqis' liberation," his father, Stanley Chin, said after watching the image of his son broadcast on television all over the world.

Shortly after wrapping the flag around the towering Saddam's face, military officials _ highly conscious of anything that could be interpreted as a sign of American occupation _ ordered Chin, 23, to take it down. He then replaced it with an Iraqi flag.

His fiancee, Anne Fu, said she knew Chin meant no disrespect.

"He wanted to show the Iraqi people that they were free, that they were liberated, that the U.S. was there to help them and that Saddam is over," she said outside the family's home.

Emphasis was added! Ed Chin has served his country well. He raised the US flag as an act of patriotism. That shows what colors he bleeds. Best part of all, he's frm New York! Gotta represent! And it proves all the naysayers who question the loyalty of recent immigrants wrong! It's also very telling that 40% of those serving in the marines are Hispanic.

Welcome this country and God bless you guys! And God bless America!

2003-04-09T01:24:00.000-04:00

Troubles in Hong Kong...Continued…

My father called me up today. The topic of the SARS crisis in Hong Kong came up and I asked my father how a family friend living there was doing. I was especially concerned because he works at the Prince of Wales Hospital, which is considered “ground zero” for Hong Kong SARS. He said that they’re making all non-medical staff work at home now and that most medical staff there has been infected by the disease. This isn’t widely reported in the media, if it is at all.

Not very reassuring; if anything, this is downright scary.

It doesn’t appear that Hong Kong has been able to control this problem. This is adversely affecting their economy. People are canceling business trips, expats are rushing out and nobody is traveling there anymore. Cathay Pacific, which is widely regarded in the business as one of the premier (and most profitable), if not the premier airline in the world, is in horrible shape right now – they only average a 30% occupancy rate! This is, obviously, much lower than their usual high yields.

I say this all with a very heavy heart because I truly love Hong Kong. As I mentioned here, I went there a few years ago and completely fell in love with the city. I’ve been to a lot of places and seen many beautiful cities, but none have the combination of sheer physical beauty, extreme intensity, stunning architecture, textbook capitalism and the air prosperity like Hong Kong coalesces. Indeed, I truly believe it is the most physically beautiful city on this planet and I was hoping to move there one day and amass my fortune there.

But, alas, it doesn’t seem like that will happen…yet. I am hoping to be optimistic.

What really irks me is that this situation isn’t really the city’s fault. I put full blame on the Chinese Government who has immorally bungled their way through this crisis. They knew that this SARS problem was severe and that it originated within their borders, but they refused to acknowledge this. This is absolutely criminal and there should be an investigation into this. But knowing how the PRC works and the insane blockades they shunt to outsiders who demand any form of accountability, this will never happen. We will never know how bad this disease was, is or could be. I think the Chinese know more than they are letting on and it seems, from my perspective at least, that they are only doing a half-assed job and trying to rectify it.

And this is a country that’s longing to be a “responsible” superpower. If this is how they’re going to act, I’d be worried about this planet’s future if/when they reach superpower status. And people say the US is bad? China is downright reckless and dangerous.

Again, this goes back to the conversation I had with my father (he’s an economics professor…apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, in my case). He was telling me that people are now going to ignore China and divest from her since they now see who they are dealing with. I beg to differ. In this new realm of globalization, for better or worse, China has become integral. Indeed, we living in the West rely on their cheaply-made goods (most times from Western companies with factories there) to buttress our high lifestyle. I have no problem with this as it is part of the global capitalist system I devotedly believe in and this is something we must accept. My qualm is that we must rely on such a partner who is just plain irresponsible.

It is this high irresponsibility that is destroying the city that I love and that infuriates me.

2003-04-08T21:28:00.000-04:00

"A Guilty Conscience Needs No Accuser..."

I've been really sick lately, which explains the lack of posting. I'm still not feeling all that great, actually.

These extreme climate changes are incredible! It was beautiful on Sunday, but yesterday's weather was shitty. Not much better today either...

Anyways, I think this article explains this topic's headline perfectly. (hat tip to Sgt. Stryker)

2003-04-05T18:39:00.000-05:00

I've been having problems with blogger. I am in the midst if getting a new domain and transferring everything to it and starting my blog anew. I'm good with coding now, but I don't get domains too well. I have a few registered (fateback and cjb.net), but I can't figure out how to transfer MoveableType or PMachine on to them.

As for the publishing format, I think I will opt with PMachine. Mrs. du Toit (she's such a sweetie!) suggested that I use PMachine over MoveableType and Greymatter. I've looked at PMachine and downloaded it and it seems much easier to use and install than MoveableType. Format seems more palatable to me as well. But like I said, I am really bad at the domain thing and I need some suggestions! If anyone has any advice, please, please let me know! I'd prefer something free at the moment, but eventually I will upgrade to something else.

Anyways, I'll be in New Jersey for the rest of the week-end, so no blogging until I get back.

Cheers and have a greet week-end all!

2003-04-02T22:47:00.001-05:00

A Heartfelt Thank You and Air Canada

I would like to thank Colby Cosh for linking my blog to his page. Colby has one of the more popular conservative blogs on the web and is, incidentally, from Edmonton, which is where I grew up. He’s a brilliant mind and I generally agree with most of what he has to say. I wish I could have met him or more people like him when I was still living in Edmonton.

This blog is just a venue for me to express my thoughts. I don’t mind that others read my writings (or lack of it, given my poor writing skills), but it’s not like I’m actively courting for people. Of course, it would be nice if people read what I had to say! But anyways, the link is really appreciated and I would like to welcome everyone who has found their way to my corner through Colby Cosh.

Now back to ranting! Colby Cosh comments on Air Canada’s decision to file for bankruptcy. I won’t post what he says here since there’s the link already.

For those who don’t know already, I am a commercial aviation enthusiast. I don’t claim to be an expert in the industry, but I follow it closely and I try to have an idea of what’s happening. Also, if any of you readers work in the field and are looking to hire, contact me! I’m dying to get into the industry! Anyways, this news did not come as a huge surprise as Air Canada has been in financial woes for a little while now. I did, however, expect them to file a bit later because I didn’t think they were doing that bad. Air Canada was the only major airline in North America to post a profit, and they were profitable until six months ago, but the last two quarters were absolutely brutal to the company and air travel in general. I guess their problems and the losses were much worse than I anticipated.

Air Canada filed for bankruptcy protection yesterday. This means that they can continue to operate as an airline while they try to make arrangements to pay off their debt. It should be noted that Canadian bankruptcy protection laws are a bit different than those here in the US. When people think of bankruptcy protection, which United filed for last December, they think of Chapter 11, which is the US version. Admittedly, I am not too familiar with Canadian bankruptcy laws. To my knowledge, they are less ridged in the terms of refinancing. Chapter 11 generally favors the creditors, but I think the Canadian equivalent does not favor them as much. For example, under Chapter 11, United slashed union contracts and salaries. The same cannot be done in Canada as unions have more sway up there. This will make Air Canada’s proceedings all the more intriguing as their unions are very, very powerful.

The causes. There are plenty of causes for Air Canada’s current financial misery. For some history, Air Canada was a crown corporation (that’s the Canadian term for a government-run business) up until 1987 when it was privatized. Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s, the Conservative Government went on a privatization spree selling of a lots of crown corporations. The transportation sector was among the most profoundly affected and today all airports and even the air traffic control system is private. When the Government was running Air Canada, they were vastly inefficient. Indeed, Air Canada used to fly to some of the most exotic routes and they based a large hub out of Montreal, which was a declining economy compared to Toronto. Furthermore, their aircraft fleet was diversified and operating and maintenance costs surrounding it were enormous. Not to mention that Air Canada had a huge swash of orders for planes, which they are still paying for this day.

After privatization, Air Canada started to streamline their operations a bit. They started ordering Airbus aircraft, which has more commonality among its own variants (and rumor had it that the Conservative Government was bribed to take those orders – a charge that was never proven…nor disproved), axed a few routes and increased operations in Toronto and Vancouver, which were two booming economies at the time.

Good strategies, in my opinion. They should have been a recipe for success, but the recession in the early 90’s absolutely killed the company then.

Time went on, things picked up, and I won’t go into a full history, but in 1999, the rival Canadian airline, Canadian Airlines International, went bankrupt and the Government sort of pushed Air Canada to engulf it…in its entirety. Air Canada was already suffering from the enormous debt accumulated the pre-privatization days and now they had to take on a larger debt load, more employees and a different operating structure than what they had been used to. Already, the airline industry was starting to decline and Air Canada’s profits were declining, but this, in many ways, was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Air Canada was in no position to absorb all these new variables and it really made for an interesting, and discouraging flying experience within Canada.

To sum things up, the merger did not go well because operating costs skyrocketed, the employees from the two airlines did not get along, and the debt load ballooned. It also didn’t help that Air Canada wasn’t allowed to lay-off more employees – probably because of government pressure. The quality of service declined, ticket prices skyrocketed (Canada used to be a very cheap place to fly to or fly out of) and customers grumbled. There was also no competition.

The economy started to tumble, 9/11, the war and the loss of monopoly due to new entries, like WestJet and JetsGo, have only decreased demand and depressed profits.

What it basically gets to is that huge debt (pre-privatization and post CP merger days, as well as buying back their own stock to fend off a hostile takeover from another company), a shaky global economy, weak consumer demand, high labor costs, unrelenting unions, strict labor laws, shoddy service, increased competition, excessive government taxes and a bickering staff have lead Air Canada to their present ailment.

A lot of people blame CEO Robert Milton. I don’t and I actually think he’s a brilliant guy. Milton saw these difficulties coming, as well as the trend of increased competition from low-cost carriers like WestJet. Milton branched Air Canada into two separate low cost brands – Tango for continental flights and Jazz for flights to the East – and kept the mainline service as well. Tango was an immediate hit, but Jazz was not because of the difficulties in the Maritime economies. Actually, it was because of Tango that Air Canada remained profitable even after 9/11. Obviously, they aren’t profitable today. But, anyways, I consider Milton to be a revolutionary man in the airline industry. Setting up a low-cost subsidiary from the mainline appears to be the wave of the future as low-cost carriers are the only ones that seem to be doing well in this environment. It’s really popular here in the US with JetBlue and Southwest, in Europe with EasyJet, and it’s picking up in Canada with JetsGo and WestJet. Delta has recently copied his strategy as they are set to launch their own low-cost division. Milton is even contemplating launching an all-cargo division of Air Canada. He knows the trends and he has the vision, but he inherited a dog shit situation. If you want to blame him for anything, blame him for the rocky merger, but nothing else. Ok…I just remembered – and added above – the Onex attempt to buy off Air Canada and Canadian. Milton made the company buy back their stock on borrowed money to fend off takeover. That was dumb, but I’m not convinced it led to the problems they have today.

So what next? GE Capital has given Air Canada a $700 Million loan to continue operations. Most likely, they will trim staff and cut some routes, probably in the US and overseas. Air Canada’s biggest problem operation-wise is productivity and they will have to improve that if they want to be competitive. I also think the Government will assist Air Canada. They have to. This was their baby and they would hate to see it go under. Besides, much of the current malaise is their fault – from the huge debt, to the forced takeover to the excessive fees they levy on each ticket. It should be their job to clean it up.

I think Air Canada will come out of this OK. I don’t believe their situation is as precarious as United’s or some other airlines. I believe that Milton is doing this because he can’t get his unions to budge on anything and this will give him more leeway over them. Could be another excellent strategy from him again, but that remains to be seen. For sure, Air Canada will come out of this with less market share than before, but I don’t think they will go under. United, on the other hand, I am worried about. But maybe I’ll talk about them later.

2003-04-02T22:47:00.000-05:00

test

2003-03-31T20:26:00.000-05:00

God Bless You Don!

One thing I really miss about Canada is Don Cherry. That guy is a true patriot who says it like it is. He also stands by his friends. He was recently on the Jim Rome Show and explained his position about his rant a few weeks ago on his show Hockey Night in Canada.

"You have to say the government was against it (the war) and I'm for it and I'm on a government program. I really thought this could be the end. . . I've been on long enough. If I have to go I have to go. I don't back down one bit."

Cherry threw a bodycheck at Prime Minister Jean Chretien for not supporting the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"I was always proud of Canada but this here is an embarrassment," he said.

"It's a damn shame."

He also re-iterated his frustration over Montreal Canadiens' fans booing the U.S. national anthem at a recent game against the New York Islanders.

"You have to realize it's Quebec and it's French Canadians," Cherry said.

"I wish everybody could have seen the Toronto Maple Leaf Gardens here in English Canada when they were singing the Star Spangled Banner. Everybody was cheering and hollering and there was American flags all over.

"Believe me, the majority of the people in Canada love the United States. We know you'd be there to help us and don't think too bad of us."

I especially liked this bit:

Cherry said his pro-American stance brings praise from ordinary Canadians but criticism from the media.

"Our media up here is totally left wing," he explained.

"It's socialist, left-wing, pinko, Commies. I got ripped to shreds in the left-wing media. That's the chance you take."

Don is a true Canadian patriot who still knows what it means to be Canadian. I just wish there was more of those people up there...or more people who have the guts to speak out.

2003-03-30T17:23:00.000-05:00

Nice Little Poem

I found this poem posted on the Canadian Friends of America website posted by a retired Canadian military officer:

Thank you for defending our freedom!
It is the Soldier, not the Reporter, who has given us Freedom of the Press.
It is the Soldier, not the Poet, who has given us Freedom of Speech.
It is the Soldier, not the Campus Organizer, who gives us Freedom to Demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
For it is the Soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag who allows the Protester to burn the flag.

So true...

2003-03-29T23:30:00.000-05:00

I Don't Hate all the Left...

...In fact, I really enjoy Brad DeLong's blog. Here is an editorial linked by DeLong about how VP Dick Cheney was wrong about his energy policy proposals and how he is primarily to blame for California's energy crisis in 2001. I'd agree, but Paul Krugman, who wrote the editorial, has always had an anti-Bush bias. Something to take into consideration.

2003-03-29T23:03:00.000-05:00

My Problem with the Left

Democracy is a wonderful thing. Any system that promotes free thought and will is admirable and enviable. That is why inside so many dictatorships we see democratic movements, like this one in Iran, for example. I truly hope that all these democratic movements succeed so these people can be privy to the wonderful bliss of liberated thought. We should be grateful that we have it.

Though at times, this freedom can give us headaches. And for me, one of the biggest headaches is the Left.

I cannot understate how much I respect and would defend their right to speak, regardless of how irrelevant and inane their ideals and motives are. In a free society, one must be prepared for the reality that there will exist people who inhabit your area who posses a different mindset. That is something I am willing to live with in a democracy.

My problem with the left is their hypocrisy and inability to grip reality. I ran across this blog earlier today. This man makes the argument that 9/11 paled in comparison to other tragic events which cost far more lives. You know what? In terms of human lives lost, he’s right (economics is a different story). More people were killed in Rwanda and Turkey and Chechnya than in the New York and Washington terrorist attacks. But Tyrone arrogantly makes the statement that one must feel more sympathy for those who died in the far worse events than those in 9/11. He even states that he feels this way: Do I weep for the dead of Sept. 11? Yes I do. But not as much as I weep for the 800,000 dead in the Rwanda genocide of 1994. Emotionally Sept. 11 doesn't even come close. Call me a monster for writing this if you wish. But that is how a rational person feels.

I do not argue that one must feel more or less sorry for those who perished in Rwanda, as it was, indeed, a terrible tragedy. If one feels that this tragedy affected them in a more profound way than another, it is their prerogative to feel so. That is the nature of democracy and everyone is entitled to their beliefs, regardless of what they are.

But, did leftists like Tyrone really weep in ’94 when 800,000 Rwandans were massacred in that civil war? I have a hard time believing that they did. In fact, I’m willing to bet money that they probably slept quite well in the months that this occurred. They probably had a few beers, laid a few chicks, did whatever it was that was opposite of weeping for those poor refugees in Rwanda. If they say they didn’t, they’re lying.

I don’t like the fact that the Left conveniently brings up a past event just to counter an argument for the sake of disagreement. If Rwanda really mattered to these people, then why the hell didn’t they bring it up back then? Why were there no protests on the streets and no calls to action? Why didn’t anyone lobby the UN to take a stronger stand? Or better yet, the US? Isn’t it an activist’s job to pay attention to these events? Aren’t they supposed to be the one to voice for change? If these events happen all the time as they so claim, why don’t we see a greater movement to bring them to our attention? And louder voices to call us into action? These are supposedly “educated” people who are in tune with world events. Either they had an off day when these calamities occurred or they simply didn’t give a damn. And I’m more inclined to think the latter.

And that is my problem with the Left. They are duplicitous, they are dishonest, they are not as caring as they claim, and they don’t have the best intentions of the many they maintain to represent. Tyrone’s flowery-worded annotations prove this in spades and the true reality of it all just makes his “rational” thought all the more irrational.

But then who ever said that irrational people lived in reality?

So, next time there is a Rwanda massacre; next time the Russians incur into Chechnya; next time those Turks gas their Kurds, I call on all you “activists” to go out, protest, scream and do just about anything (non-violently, of course) to bring whatever future tragedy that may take place to our attention. It is your task, as “observant” people, to look out for these things. Do not blame the rest of Western society for neglecting to notice the misery of those in poorer countries. In this modern day and age, you guys have just as many tools as the rest of us to bring these things to our attention. I call upon you to use these tools productively, not destructively as you’re doing right now. If societal betterment is what you seek, call everyone to task. Don’t just wait until after the fact so you can scold and carp about how cruel, heartless and uncaring the rest of us are for not noticing. It is your job to tell us! There are absolutely no excuses and you mustn’t lay blame on others for not paying attention when you’re not bringing things to our awareness.

But laying blame on others and refusing to be held accountable is part of the Left’s methodology and ideology. And that is another anguish of mine, but I’ll leave that for another time.

So to my readers from other countries who don’t have the freedom of though that we in the West have, do not take my disparagement as illustrating my disillusion with society. On the contrary, I recognize other people’s right to speak and I value other opinions…providing they are constructive and honest. Yes, I even accept the rights of the looniest in the Left to argue as partake in life too, but I have as equal a right to criticize and disagree and slam their opinion. That is the beauty of democracy, but also the ugliness of it. But then, I probably wouldn’t have it any other way…

2003-03-29T00:56:00.000-05:00

Double Standards

This is ridiculous. People complain about the US and Israel not abiding by the will of the "international community", but what about China? China continuously thumbs its nose to the world. This time, they won’t even allow WHO inspectors into the country (you need to register – it’s free – see the article) to check up on that SARS virus (link via Conrad).

Insane.

China’s government is rogue, as far as I’m concerned. Why no international outcry? Hypocritical.

Scariest thing of all is that this SARS virus has been hitting Toronto pretty bad. My sister lives there and my parents are visiting her right now. I was supposed to go this week-end, but decided against it (personal, and somewhat political reasons, but nothing to do with the virus, I assure you). I’m worried about them.

2003-03-29T00:13:00.000-05:00

Disappointing...

About a month ago, I took an exam to be an air traffic controller at JFK Airport. If you've read my background, then you'd know that I LOVE planes and anything associated with them. I also love JFK airport and often spend time over there on week-ends just sitting watching the planes take off and land. It would have been my dream job to be an air traffic controller at JFK and get paid to ~~watch~~...NO control the planes taking off and landing. I couldn’t have asked for anything more!

So, I went to JFK and took the exam. There’s supposed to be about 50 openings and the guys administering everything expected a light turnout. Not the case at all! For those 50 openings, there were about 3,000 people taking the exam! Don’t like the odds! Apparently, the NY State Department of Labor got word of this and gave the address to everyone who is on unemployment insurance. They said that if turnout was higher than anticipated, then they would select applicants randomly.

I wasn’t selected…I just got confirmation in the mail today.

I didn’t expect to get anything, but this is sort of crushing. I really, really wanted this…bad! Probably more than anyone in that room. But what can you do? Not much, I suppose.

Otherwise, I have an interview with this large travel conglomerate based in New Jersey. It should be good. It would probably pay more than the ATC job and it’s in the travel industry, which I love. I just hope something works out in that respect. I’d probably have to move to Jersey, but that’s OK as I practically live there on the week-ends anyways. And I like New Jersey. I know, I know, it’s New Jersey, but I really think it a great state and people have the wrong impression of it. Of course, it would be my preference to stay in Queens, but I’d be content in Jersey.

Consulting-wise, things are still slow as they’ve been that way for a little while. It all has to do with the war, which is why I was really hesitant about it in the beginning. Business was pretty much the main reason for me not being so “gung-ho”. But now that we’re at war, can’t change anything about it.

On the other hand, I’m hearing from people that things seem to be picking up with the economy. And it’s started the last week too…as soon as war started! Indeed, the stocks have remained stable (yes, they’ve fluctuated up and down a lot, but it’s cancelled each other out.) overall. I’m told now that companies are looking to hire and businesses are thinking about replenishing their inventories. It could be just one week as some weeks are good and some bad, but the people I’ve talked to (and I think they’re in the positions to know) think it could be the start of a recovery, albeit a modest one.

I know some economists are saying that a quick war will substantially boost this economy. Some of the more liberal ones, especially those based in Canada (I’ve been reading a lot from the Canadian media lately) don’t agree. I’m inclined to disagree with the latter group because they’re usually off base when it comes to assessing their own economy. I also believe that much of the problems we’re seeing right now are emotion-based, mostly due to fear and uncertainty over Iraq and terrorism. If this mood prevails for a while, it will absolutely kill consumer confidence even more. Consumer confidence was really the only thing that kept this economy above the recession line. But consumer confidence has declined the last few months. We could be in recession right now, for all I know – the numbers just aren’t out yet. But as soon as these emotions (and the war) clear up, I’m confident that we’ll have strong growth again. The big question is “when”?

Of course, everything could be regional. The economy here in New York is in bad shape, though I truly don’t believe things are that much better off in other major centers. New Jersey’s economy seems to be doing a bit better, but that’s usually the case. Most of the country is pretty badly off, actually. The Bay Area seems to be the worst off from what I see and I don’t think they’re going to recover all that quickly. Southern California, however, has picked up. Mostly due to defense contracts as many of the defense related industries are located there. South Florida is doing OK (it was booming) because of all the rich South American businessmen dumping their money there since they’re fleeing from the newly-elected socialist governments in their home countries. That will continue so long as there are rich industrialists coming over.

But still, it’s guiding planes and that’s all I ever wanted to do. I might end up going to the College of Aeronautics this fall to take an ATC course. Supposedly, they hire straight out of there. I’m going to the open house next week to check it out. If I’m guaranteed to land a job – and that’s what they told me when I wrote the exam – then I’ll do it. If not, I don’t see any point. Time will tell, I guess.

2003-03-27T19:15:00.000-05:00

Facelift

I've got my own domain (I think! I just have to set it up! I'm really bad with computers) and I'm in the midst of giving this place a major facelift. Indeed, I have the Moveable Type and CityDesk software and have to figure out how to use those. But I desperately want to change the layout because I think this one just sucks balls and I'm not sure that blogger -- as much as I am appreciative of it! -- can do everything I want it to do. Maybe some of you can give me some suggestions?

Cheers!

2003-03-27T17:33:00.000-05:00

Canadian Loudmouth

A lot of really good posts from Canadian Loudmouth. Far too many to link! Just go to his site!

2003-03-27T03:36:00.000-05:00

As if Things Couldn't Get any Worse...

...they have.

On Wednesday, Liberal MPs held a fractious meeting behind closed doors, debating whether to censure, maybe even expel, Ambassador Paul Cellucci.

So, they want to expel The US Ambassador but they refuse to expel an Iraqi diplomat. Talk about misplaced priorities!

The Liberal Government has really losts its head in this one and they just keep sinking themselves to pathetic new lows. Are they truly so stupid?

On the way into Wednesday's meeting, some Liberal caucus members had a few undiplomatic things to say about Cellucci. Scarborough-Agincourt MP Jim Karygiannis said Cellucci had no business commenting on Canadian policies.

"We're the ones that speak on behalf of our electorate. Cellucci doesn't get elected in our constituencies. He doesn't get elected in Canada," he said.

Thirty-six Liberals lined up to speak in caucus, after an Ontario MP argued Canada should lodge a formal protest.

One camp argued the ambassador crossed the line, behaving more like a partisan politician than a diplomat. Some even argued he should be recalled.

But there is some common sence finally emerging:

In the other camp were MPs who think he was only responding to the anti-American comments by Liberals: cabinet minister Herb Dhaliwal calling President George W. Bush a failed statesman and MP Carolyn Parrish calling all Americans "bastards."

Irwin Cotler, who represents the Montreal riding of Mount Royal, says the prime minister has a tough job ahead of him convincing Americans that the differences over Iraq are based on policy, not personality.

"What they couldn't abide by were the kinds of statements that seemed to suggest that Bush was worse than Saddam Hussein. Those are the kind of hurtful and harmful references that began to resonate in the United States."

[...]

Chrétien reminded the Commons that Canadians took in 40,000 Americans after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks; that Canada has contributed to the war on terrorism by sending troops to Afghanistan and ships to the Arabian Sea. Canada, he said, will also contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq.

In your dreams! Canada, along with France, Russia the UN and others, has not earned the right to be involved with any post-war reconstruction efforts. Their best hope for any say or business contacts in Iraq are for a US loss; and I truly don't think that would be in their best interests overall...but then, the French have never ceased to amaze me.

I've said this time and time again, the only hope that remains in Canada is for them to go Alliance. The Liberal Party has done nothing good for the country except boost misplaced haughtiness.

Chretien acts as if he really doesn't care about what's really going on or it could be that he's truly, truly stupid. I think it's a bit...errr...a lot of both. It's time for Canadians to get up and act now against the cancer ruining their (and formerly my) country. There are some glimmers of hope, but stats like these lead me to believe otherwise.

Wake up Canada!

2003-03-27T00:32:00.000-05:00

Notes and Comments on Chretien’s Succession

Once again, I find myself commenting on something that Pieter Dorsman says and agreeing with pretty much everything! I would also like to add a few things, however.

Interestingly there is a very senior Canadian government minister who believes that support for the US is the way to go. His name is John Manley and he happens to be Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. It has surprised me that he had not spoken up before on this issue because he is known to be fairly pragmatic in his dealings with the US and he enjoys a very good working relationship with his counterpart Tom Ridge, as Manley also deals with cross border security. Yet, for those of you familiar with the workings of this government (read my post regarding the old man) it is clear that Manley has been bullied into submission. But you could also argue that he has wisely shut up as he is a contender for the leadership of the Liberal party and thus a candidate to lead Canada as Prime Minister. By showing his hand now he would lose the chance to ever have a real shot at that leadership position. His main contender for the job is one Paul Martin who I can only describe as not very different from the man he seeks to succeed: sheer ambition for the top job but no vision at all. Business elites in Canada like him as he is billed as a fiscal conservative who was Minister of Finance during the boom years of the 1990s but there is scant evidence that he had anything to do with the economics of those revered 1990s. He rode the wave and benefited from the groundwork laid by his predecessors, just like Bill Clinton. None of the fiscal policies coming out of Ottawa would have been there would it not have been for the final decision maker: Chretien. I am not clear what the fascination is with Paul Martin but that is besides the point now.

I completely agree with Pieter about questioning everyone’s enthrallment with Paul Martin, suggesting that he will be Canada’s “savior”. Indeed, he is much better than the guy in power right now, but then, it’s difficult to get a lot worse. I also agree that Finance Minister John Manley (I actually don’t mind him that much) is pretty much the same as Martin, with no distinguishing features other than his white hair and his closer relationship with US officials.

What I disagree with is his characterization of the two. Remember, both guys are members of the Liberal Party of Canada, which is hardly the bastion of conservatism. What may be considered fiscally conservative for the Liberal Party is really not fiscal conservatism in the true sense of the word – but I guess it’s all relative. Certainly, Manley’s last budget – devoid of any tax relief -- was hardly an example of conservatism. I give them both credit, however, for straightening Canada’s budget woes in the late 90’s.

Pieter also alluded that Martin’s economic foresight was responsible for Canada’s success in the 90’s, but I disagree with him on that issue as well. Canada’s economic prosperity was based on one thing and one thing only: a weak Canadian Dollar which improved trade flow with the US to the advantage of Canada. I also believe that the boom was smoke and mirrors in a lot of respects, especially in terms of standard of living, which declined. The only companies that truly thrived in the 90’s were those that had business dealings primarily with the US. Those companies were mostly located in Southeast Ontario, around the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). Alberta also thrived (and is still doing pretty well), mostly because of oil and other natural resources. The rest of the country was quite stagnant in its growth. Quebec, as always, was slow and the Maritimes have always been the country’s economic basket case. BC boomed up until ’97 because of trade with Asia and the huge influx capital from Asian immigrants, but the success subsided after Hong Kong’s takeover by the Chinese and the Asian financial crisis. The province has yet to recover from that meltdown and subsequent socialist governments have forestalled any chance of resurgence. Manitoba has always been in decline and always will because of that province’s reactionary mentality. Saskatchewan? Nobody cares about Saskatchewan!

Back to the leadership race. I agree that Manley has a shot (not a good one) at succession and view him as sort of the “dark horse”, if you will. The other candidates are Martin, whose garnering everyone’s attention, and Sheila Copps. There could be a few other names in the hat, but I’m unaware of them. Manley has been quiet about his activities, and although everyone seems to know what his intentions are, nobody is paying attention to him. I think he has a few things that are advantageous compared to the others. As Pieter mentioned before, he has an excellent working relationship with some members of the Bush Administration. He could use this to his advantage in promoting his candidacy, saying that he will repair all the damage that Chretien has done vis-à-vis the US. To me, that is his greatest asset and the thing (aside from the color of his hair) that makes him distinguishable to Paul Martin. Martin, though known to be a staunch Chretien opponent, has been somewhat quiet on the issue of Canada’s relationship with the US and isn’t really known to have a good (or bad, for that matter) relationship with anyone in Washington.

Personally, I dislike Martin because I think he suffers from Al “I am entitled to be a world leader” Gore syndrome. Anyone with that type of a mindset is scary indeed!

Sheila Copps scares the shit of me. She is a liberal to the core and has always been by Chretien’s side. I think she represents the consensus of the Liberal caucus and will be quite popular among them.

Thus my prediction is as follows: Martin, Copps, and then Manley. My choice would be Manley. I think Manley’s better than the other three and has a real chance at setting things right, but he isn’t too popular with the rest of the party. I really don’t trust Martin. And Copps is someone who must be avoided at all costs!

Of course, I still believe that Canada’s best shot at regaining any sort of respectability is to oust the Liberal Party and go Alliance, but, alas, that will never happen.

2003-03-26T23:43:00.000-05:00

Welcome Aboard and Thanks!

I would like to welcome everyone who was referred here by Peaktalk! I really do appreciate the referral and I hope you guys enjoy reading my stuff! Thanks Pieter!

Lately, I’ve been focusing on US, Canadian and Asian issues, but I’ll talk about just about anything that comes to my mind. What you won’t find here is much linking compared to some of the other sites as I really do like to express my own opinions and I genuinely love to write, even though I am such a bad writer!

Anyways, I hope you guys have enjoyed everything thus far and I will try to update this blog as often as possible.

Thanks again!

2003-03-26T17:39:00.000-05:00

Update On Entry Below

Damn! I forgot to mention that I used to be friends with a few of The Gateway's editors. This is why the editorial I listed below is so shocking. But then, things have changed since I left.

2003-03-26T01:55:00.000-05:00

Canadian College Perspective

I forwarded this editorial to LGF (who was more than kind enough to post it (thanks, Charles!) from the University of Alberta school paper, The Gateway. The U of A is, ironically, my alma mater. Yes, I went to that school and I hated every minute of it! I was so glad when I graduated that I vowed never to set foot on that campus again. I have kept my promise over three years later, thanks in part to the fact that I don't live in Edmonton anymore.

Needless to say, I thought the article was outragreous to the point of being laughable, yet still very disturbing. Charles Johnson of LGF sums it up best in his comments:

How diseased is the soul of a person who writes that his best case scenario is for the US to suffer “huge loss of life for no real gain?” This is completely unhinged, pathological hatred with no bearing at all on reality, utterly indistinguishable from the rantings of the mad mullahs of the Middle East.

Indeed!

2003-03-26T01:06:00.000-05:00

South Korean Perspective

Tony has a nice conservative blog that I recently discovered and read just about daily. He makes comments about how the war in Iraq is being broadcast in South Korean media and analyzes a few editorials (Choson Ilbo editorial) (and here -- Korea Herald editorial). I’m not going to post what they say as he’s done a good job if it, but I will make a few comments on them (not on his comments because I agree with what he has to say).

I spent last summer in Seoul, South Korea to attend a friend’s wedding and I really fell in love with the place. I was given a difficult time by some of the younger crowd (racism is pretty rampant there), but I made a lot of friends (mostly in the 30+ crowd) and was treated very well by the people I was with.

Granted, things were different last summer than they are today. The horrible tragedy of the two little girls being run over by a USFK tank was not publicly broadcast at that time and Korea was still going through the Red Devil soccer team euphoria. But I could sense that there was some tension intensifying and that things were starting to feel a little more uncomfortable.

I’m glad I left when I did because it seems that it got pretty bad after my departure. Obviously, things have cooled down now that the elections are over and Rumsfeld threatened to take US forces away from Korea, but there is still a strong anti-American (I’m not inclined to believe that it is just against Americans because it seems to be directed towards anyone who isn’t Korean) sentiment and it will probably never go away.

It may seem that I’m straying off track here, but I’m not. These views are prevalent in the two editorials that I linked above. I was absolutely dumbfounded at how ignorant their analysis of the situation was. OK, the Korea Times doesn’t surprise me as that is a liberal pundit, but the Chosan Ilbo, which is supposedly conservative and pro-USA, did.

The Korean press need not be reminded of their own hypocrisy when it comes to reporting events. For example, the tragic deaths of the two teenage girls occurred in June 2002, but the press didn’t make mention of it until well into the month of August. Was it not important enough to bring up during the World Cup? Why didn’t anyone in Korea pounce on that inconsistency? And they say we have double standards? My ass we do!

Today, South Korea is very divided between the conservative older generation and the liberal young. Indeed, the last elections proved this as the votes were essentially split 50-50. The conservatives have started speaking out, but their voices aren’t being heard by the new liberal government of Roh Moo-hyun. I don’t really expect him to listen to those voices as he based his campaign on everything opposite to what conservatives voted for. But so it goes.

I’m one of those people who think US troops should not be in South Korea. Why? Because I don’t want our boys anywhere they’re not wanted and they’re most certainly not wanted in South Korea. If South Koreans think they can peacefully reconcile or are capable of defending themselves against the North, I say let them have their way. I say it with sadness because I love South Korea and think it is an incredible country, but I believe that a large chunk of the population is acting juvenile right now and is blinded by racial ignorance to the point where it is counterproductive to their nation. Make no mistake, Roh’s election was not a good thing for South Korea. I won’t get into “why” right now, but I'll just say that I don't think he is strong enough to lead South Korea through this perilous time.

Furthermore, I think the younger generation truly needs to get their head examined when it comes to the country’s future and their place in the world, especially when dealing with reunification. While I think reunifying with the North is an admirable goal, it certainly isn’t realistic, especially with the hostile regime in Pyongyang. I think it’s time for South Koreans to start accepting this reality and maybe think of themselves themselves like Taiwan. Taiwan is a certainly Chinese country, but they have neither the desire nor ambition to ever become part of the greater China. They have accepted this fact; hell, they are proud of being different! I think this distinguishing factor has made them as successful as they are today – more so than South Korea in just about every respect. If South Korea started adopting this mindset, then their fortunes would improve too.

The question is, will they? Recent events – and editorials – lead me to think otherwise.

Update: Indeed, it looks like I was right on the money.

2003-03-25T01:53:00.000-05:00

Brian Mulroney Speaks

Another great article in the National Post (via Pietor Dorsman) where former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney speaks of the dangers of current Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien's policy towards the US and regarding his Iraq decision.

''I think this is juvenile delinquency elevated to parliamentary proportions,'' the former Conservative prime minister, said in an exclusive interview with Ottawa Inside Out, Global Television's new political affairs show.

''For 135 years, Canada has made common cause with Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States in the defence of liberty and freedom around the world ... Now we have repudiated at a crucial, seminal moment in our history our allies and coalition partners of the past. And we have new partners, the Russians, the Chinese and the Germans. "This represents quite a change and I want to tell you I am one of many Canadians who is dissatisfied with it and regrets it.''

[...]

''Mr. Chrétien never said at the time that we can only do this if we have Security Council approval. They didn't have Security Council approval and they went and did it anyway. So this enthusiasm of the Liberal government for the United Nations and the Security Council is a very recent vintage,'' he said.

Mr. Mulroney acknowledged Mr. Chrétien's policy of neutrality is popular in Canada, but he said the test of leadership is to make the right decision in Canada's long-term interest even if the public is initially opposed. He pointed to Tony Blair, who committed troops to the war against great public opposition, which has begun to melt as the British Prime Minister rallied his nation to what Mr. Mulroney called a just war.

[...]

Mr. Mulroney described the Chrétien policy of neutrality on Iraq ''a classic example of followership, not leadership. "

Mr. Chrétien has insisted bilateral relations with the U.S. will not be hurt because the massive economic relationship will take precedence over the current political disagreement. But Mr. Mulroney, who in December met George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice at the White House, said Mr. Chrétien has lost all influence with the administration.

That could harm Canada's ability to deal with the administration on issues from softwood lumber to border security, he said.

''In this unipolar world that has existed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, all roads lead to Washington. It may be offensive to some to hear me say that but it happens to be true. If you want to live in Disney World, you can believe something else,'' Mr. Mulroney said.

This is spot on analysis by someone who is intimately familiar with the current US Administration. Indeed, he is close friends with some of the leading US conservatives in politics today, particularly the Bush family, VP Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. If he says that US-Canadian relations are in trouble, I'd be inclined to believe him. It means that Chretien's "What? Me worry?" attitude is not only is irresponsible, but dangerous.

I moved to Canada (and this was many, many years ago) when Mulroney was in charge. It certainly was a different place back then. Canada had more self-confidence and an air of success and it really felt good being in that country. Anti-Americanism was not nearly as pervasive as it is today. Indeed, I was proud to be Canadian. That changed when Kim Campbell came into power, followed by ten years of Liberal "elected dictatorship".

I never understood why Mulroney was so unpopular in Canada. He didn't have nearly as many scandals as Chretien and his Liberal Party have had. He did some pretty good things for the country and structured the Canadian economy to experience the large degree of success it had during the 90's. He was polite, humble and always the gentleman. Maybe he wasn't an overt "patriot" like Chretien, but I believe he did things that were in the country's best interests, whether the public saw this or not.

You can't say that about Chretien. Aside from balancing the budget, he's done nothing else spectacular. He's ruined the outstanding relationship that Canada and the US had (this started way before Bush came into power). He's responsible for the slide in the Canadian standard of living the past decade. He's responsible for the weak dollar (which, ironically, has been the main source of growth for the Canadian economy). He's neglected the military. He's neglected the healthcare system (and as a former healthcare consultant, whose father is a healthcare economist, it's in trouble!). He's a liar. He's corrupt. He's a sleaze. He's arrogant. He's incompetent. But most importantly, he's weak and he's not a leader.

Yet in spite of all this, he remains relatively popular and his party is certainly poised to continue its grasp on power for the foreseeable future. Why? They certainly don't represent the best interests of the Canadian people. You’d think more people would see through this pandering.

Oh well, you can always count on China and France to look out for you. I'm curious to see how Bush's visit to Canada in May will play out. If I were the President, I wouldn't go.

2003-03-24T23:35:00.000-05:00

Michael Moore

A very fitting Michael Moore pic courtesy of DaghatorBlog.

I used to be a fan of Moore up until I read his incoherent book, Stupid White Men. I didn't realize how much of a nut this guy really was until I finished it, which was difficult to do, but I held together! Even worse, a friend of mine lives in the same neighborhood as Moore and has actually met the guy. She's very liberal in her views (even a member of the Green Party), but she still thought he was crazy. Not the nicest guy in the world from what I gather either.

Update: More Moore from DaghatorBlog again.

2003-03-24T22:47:00.000-05:00

Hong Kong’s Decline

Pieter Dorsman writes about why he left Hong Kong:

When I read this I really feel a sense of sadness and anger. Hong Kong used to be one of the most dynamic economic engines of the world, a unique model for wealth creation. And in addition, it used to be a great place to live, I doubt if I will ever live in a place that has so much to offer as Hong Kong. However that great Hong Kong engine stalled at the end of the 1990s as a result of the slowdown of Asian markets but also because it stopped being the gateway to China as mainland China became directly accessible from abroad. The big issue to me has always been that very little of the wealth generated was plowed back into making Hong Kong livable. Yours truly is probably a veritable free-market conservative-libertarian who abhors statist intervention (which is why I fitted into Hong Kong so well), but if there was ever a case to redistribute some tax revenue for the better it would have been in Hong Kong. Apart from the excessive air pollution and littering, recent years saw phenomena as the chicken flu, red tide (dead fish turning up all over the place), cases of cholera and now the pneumonia or SARS epidemic. Now, Hong Kong residents have a propensity to go over board when certain isolated incidences of a disease hit the newswires, but we can confidently assume that the pneumonia scare is the latest installment of a rapidly and seriously deteriorating living environment in the former British colony.

I went to Hong Kong a couple of years ago and absolutely fell in love with the city. I was absolutely marveled at how beautiful the scenery and harbor was and impressed at how well true laissez-faire capitalism worked. Back then, the economy wasn’t “booming”, but it sure didn’t appear to be in recession – there was construction absolutely everywhere.

Indeed, after my visit, I tried desperately to find a job there so I can experience Hong Kong’s famous expat life, which is probably the best of its kind in the world. But alas, I failed to land something.

Pieter’s comments are quite sad and sobering for me, especially since the city has such a special place in my heart. But it doesn’t come as a complete surprise. I have friends living in Hong Kong and they say things have been getting progressively worse in just about every aspect of their life. Most of them I know are planning to leave, if they haven’t already, within the coming few years.

Hong Kong’s economy really started to stall after the Chinese took over in ’97. The Asian economic crisis only exacerbated things quicker. Many reasons for that, but mostly because, as Pieter mentions, Hong Kong was no longer the welcome mat for China and the politburo was hell bent on making Shanghai the economic powerhouse for the country.

I can understand why they would do this: Shanghai is a better port and much closer to China’s largest trading partners -- US and Japan. Also, it is said that Shanghai residents are much more business-minded than their Hong Kong counterparts. Indeed, many multinational companies are transferring their Hong Kong assets and interests to Shanghai because of its geographical position, better business-minded residents, fractional labor costs and the huge grants and incentives from Beijing.

The attitude of Hong Kong has thus changed. Under British rule, Hong Kong was a multinational and multicultural city. It was Chinese, but had a British flavor to it, as well as scores of other nationalities who hived to Hong Kong to make their fortunes.

That multinationalism started to disappear with the advent of the PRC’s takeover. Pro-China cronies were installed and promoted a China-first policy. This resulted in everything being done to benefit China rather than Hong Kong. Not surprising, but detrimental to the city. English instruction in school was replaced with Mandarin and many top administrators were replaced with Chinese counterparts. Not only that, companies were often encouraged to dump their “gweilo” employees in favor of Chinese ones. Some of my friends were affected by this policy – few, if any, were promoted for their hard work and many witnessed less qualified locals assuming more authoritative positions. Many left or are leaving as a result of this.

I’m not implying that Chinese aren’t incapable of doing the job, but when you have something that works already, why change? Replacing qualified employees for the sake of racial purity is just a dumb policy and makes zero economic sense. As a result, businesses are fleeing Hong Kong (going to, of all places, the Mainland, which is ironically more open to foreign investment and “influence” in order to speed up their growth prospects) and the once sought bilingual public’s English skills are rapidly deteriorating to the point where the workforce is no longer competitive compared to those in close by Taiwan, Singapore and even some major cities in the Mainland.

But it was to be expected, so one shouldn’t be surprised. I’m just disappointed that things went down so rapidly in the “City of Life”…

2003-03-24T19:27:00.000-05:00

The Agonist

I'm adding Sean-Paul Kelly's The Agonist to my blogroll. He's left-wing and he's good with how he presents his views: he doesn't do the "moral high ground" that others do. Plus his wife is absolutely gorgeous! Anyways, his blog is always worth a read.

2003-03-24T18:01:00.000-05:00

Finally, Some Fortitude!

Hats off to Canadian Defense Minister John McCallum for refusing to pull out Canadian troops already in the region.

Pulling Canadian ships out of the Persian Gulf area or removing Canadian soldiers from an exchange program with U.S. and British troops would be "cowardly" and would put our allies at risk, Defence Minister John McCallum said Monday.

It goes on:

"If we were to do what he is suggesting, at best we would offend our allies and at worst we would put our allies at risk. And we are not about to do that," the Defence Minister said in the Commons.

After Question Period, Mr. McCallum was asked by reporters how pulling troops off the exchange program would put allied forces at risk.

"If we withdrew one or two or three soldiers, if they are there, it would be very difficult to replace them immediately. We would be endangering the lives of the colleagues with whom they are working.

"The opposition is telling us we should take away our ships, just when the risk is higher and I think that would be an act of cowardice," he said.

Mr. McCallum said he cannot discuss the exact location of the exchange participants because it would be a national security breach.
He said the ships in the Gulf are also playing a number of important roles and it would insult Canada's allies in the war against terrorism if they were removed.

Kudos to you and shame on those NDB and BQ backstabbers and weasels.

I have always had the utmost respect for McCallum who is very good at what he does. He wanted Canada to at least give political support to the Iraq War and pressed Chretien to do it. He’s an upstanding man who knows the meaning of the word loyalty and friendship.

I also have a lot of respect for Canadian military forces. They are damn good at what they do and extremely well-trained. They are very patriotic at honorable and I never met a Canadian military officer that I didn’t like. The big problem is that they are treated like shit by the current Government who has neglected them with funding the past ten years. For these hardships, I respect them even more...perhaps more than even American forces because we don't give our troops any flack and they don't deal with an ounce of the negativity that the Canadian forces do.

They feel unappreciated. The public doesn’t realize that these people have chosen to serve because they love their country and they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect it. These feelings are not just limited to the USA. I wish more Canadians would wake up and support their troops and quit acting like it's a bad thing to have a military!

2003-03-24T15:30:00.000-05:00

Angua makes an interesting comment about Jason Currie’s Canadian Friends of America website. Personally, I’m 100% for this website and believe it is a great idea. I think Currie is tapping into an undercurrent that is strong, but quiet and needs to get voiced out to give everyone the message that there are diverse opinions in Canada (you don’t get that impression anymore) and that not all of these opinions are negative. The one thing I disagree with Jason on is the section where cites American accomplishments. I agree with him on those points, but I don’t believe that it’s really necessary for this site. Canadian Friends of America is about combating the ramped and reflexive anti-Americanism that exists in Canadian society. That’s the only thing the site needs to focus on and nothing else. If anything, that section will generate more anti-Americanism as it will impress the feeling of inadequacy. That’s just my opinion though.

Back to Angua’s comments; I feel they are somewhat naïve and quite off the mark.

Why am I unsure: Because I believe that it is possible for this country to develop into something marvelous, a beacon to the world. I saw a glimpse of that beacon in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I learned about the promise of this becacon in our history from Hudson's Bay Company and RCMP on. Just as it would be terribly wrong for Canada to become America Junior, so it is also wrong for it to be the anti-America. And yes, of course, I am scared of mobs. My problem is that I am almost as scared of an "I love America" mob as I am of an "I hate America" mob. The hatred scares me more, of course, but it's the mob mentality that scares me most of all. But good luck to Jay Currie and friends for doing something to show our neighbours that not all of us hate them.

As I’ve said before, I am a Canadian citizen and lived in that country most of my life. I’m pretty in tune with what goes on in that country still. Angua believes that the “mob mentality” is a bad thing no matter what side it is on. I think this is wrong on several counts. First off, the pro-American sentiment hardly constitutes a mob. It’s only a few people who are voicing their opinions. Indeed, most Canadians still support Chretien’s decision on this war, though it is eroding. And the few who are supporting the US on this issue, their behavior has been far from mob-like. Does the “I love America” mob burn flags, boo anthems, insult others, call others immature names, or riot? There is a substantial difference in behavior and one would be extremely stupid not to pick up on it. Give me the “I love America” crowd any day; they’re usually a lot nicer, more in tune with today’s events and less arrogant people anyways (compare those who live in Montreal or Toronto to Alberta. And as someone who has lived in Toronto and Alberta, Albertans are much, much friendlier and nicer). Besides, since when is it wrong to support something that isn’t the Government line? It’s OK to “voice your opinion” with “liberal” causes (and you see so many anti-American sites originating from Canada), but not “conservative” ones? That reeks of hypocrisy.

As well, Angua’s naiveté really shows when describing the “beacon” Canada can become. I believe Canada has a lot of potential as a country. Indeed, the wasted potential is one of the most frustrating things to me. I think Canada was a better country ten years ago than it is today and I blame the Liberal Government for that. Nonetheless, you have to be realistic here. Canada does have the potential, but they aren’t using it. So long as the unreasonable “blame America” sentiment exists and runs the country, all that energy that could be used to better oneself will be used counter-productively. That is what's happening in the country right now, especially with the “wait and see” and “no position” posturing. I say face the facts and get with reality. Don’t delve on what can be or what might have been. That’s exactly what motivates the French today.

As for “not wanting to become America Jr.”, if that is what motivates Canada and Canadian thinking, then there is something fundamentally wrong with what drives that society. Nobody is saying they should replicate the US, but it’s not like the US is some horrible nation. It’s a great democracy and there are many things to aspire to about it. Canada’s a great democracy too, but it must not fall into the abyss of self-doubt, blame-shifting and spin that’s inherent today. If Canada is defining and moving itself as an antithesis of America, then it is going in the wrong direction; Canadian policy and judgment should not be based on doing whatever it takes to distinguish itself from the USA.

This type of antithetical philosophy is akin to how terrorists recruit their followers or how Iran runs its anti-Semitic propaganda line. No, Canada is not as bad as those two entities and it is most certainly not a terrorist state, but the same underlining is apparent.

I don’t think Angua is stupid (and I didn’t intend that above); she seems like a bright lady, but I strongly disagree with her assessment. It’s OK to be a proud Canadian and love and cherish your friendship with the USA. You don’t have to like just one country or like one and hate the other. I love the US and I love Canada and believe that they are the two best countries and societies that this planet has ever seen. I happen to love the US more and that is why I have chosen to live here, but my feelings for the US don’t cloud or diminish my feelings towards Canada.

Update: I somewhat stand corrected. Apparently, there was some booing at a hockey game in Florida, according to Colby Cosh.
While fans at the Bell Centre in Montreal cheered "The Star-Spangled Banner" before the Canadiens' win over the Carolina Hurricanes yesterday, "O Canada" drew steady booing in Sunrise, Fla., before the Ottawa Senators' victory over the Florida Panthers.

That’s unfortunate and shameful. And while I do not condone this behavior and find it repulsing, do not forget where this came from (from same link).
The applause in Montreal was a reversal from the booing that greeted the U.S. anthem before Thursday's game against the New York Islanders. The fans' actions were reported on newscasts across North America with other manifestations of anti-war sentiment around the world.

I guess it takes one to know one. I still stand by my statement that the pro-America crowd has acted with multitudes more class decorum than the anti-American clusters. Stillm no such behavior should be tolerated.

2003-03-22T16:25:00.000-05:00

Classic!

From Common Sense via Former Belgian.

2003-03-21T22:04:00.000-05:00

French Ambitions

I just finished reading two editorials about French ambitions. The first one (from Steven Den Beste) argues that Chirac's conflicting behavior vis-à-vis the US is earning him high praise at home, in spite of the fact that France is going through some turbulent times.

‘Chirac was cynically looking for an opportunity to establish France on the world stage with an act of resistance to US power,’ claims one US diplomat in Paris. ‘Chirac could have achieved all of his objectives simply by abstaining. Once he promised to vote “no”, he provided cover for all of the undecided and created the conditions under which America had to go it alone.’

US officials in Paris say they doubt the Bush administration will seek United Nations approval or Nato involvement for future military actions, effectively consigning both organizations to ‘after-care’ roles. For the United Nations again to hold any credibility in US eyes, many believe France will have to sacrifice, or at least share, its Security Council permanent membership status. ‘De Villepin has delivered exactly what Chirac wanted, and in the process has done great damage to three institutions: the UN, Nato and the EU,’ said one US diplomat in Paris.

It goes on:

There is another reason why Chirac is unlikely to stop playing to the gallery. There is an awful lot that is not going to plan on the domestic economic front. French unemployment has risen sharply over the last year to 9.1 per cent and is poised to breach the traumatic 10 per cent threshold this year. The rapid slowdown in French economic growth — the official forecast for GDP growth in 2003 was halved this week to a mere 1.3 per cent — means that France will soon be in violation of European Union rules on both budget deficits and public debt. It is ironic that these optimistic forecasts are based on the idea of the quick, short and clean war that French diplomats claim is so unlikely. Either way, few economists believe Chirac has any chance of being able to honour an election pledge to cut taxes by 30 per cent over five years. Even if France is not in quite such bad shape as Germany, there are plenty of reasons for Chirac to seek short-term wins abroad. The game is not over. It has barely started.

Pretty hairy stuff! He’s essentially trying to be a modern day de Gaulle.

The second editorial from the Sun-Times (and I honestly forgot the link! If you had it on your site, please let me know so I can credit you!) contends that Chirac is opposing the US just to make France a major player in the world at the expense of the US.

As the morning Parisian daily, Le Figaro, told its readers approvingly: Mr. Chirac had three reasons for his long diplomatic campaign against the United States. All of them had to do with enhancing French power. None of them had to do with the welfare of the Iraqis or peace in the Middle east.

First, President Chirac wants to lessen American influence in the world--because it now dwarfs the old great powers like his. Timothy Garton Ash, another opponent of the war, said nearly the same thing in Thursday's British daily, the Guardian.

"Jacques Chirac believes that it's unhealthy for any single country to have so much power, but it's particularly dangerous if that country happens to be America [rather than shall we say, France].''

And more:

Secondly, Le Figaro says, Mr. Chirac is trying to support the development of a distinctly European voice in world affairs. The end of the Cold War confrontation between the Soviet bloc and the West was supposed to create--according to the French and Germans--a new world of many powers.

It seems to me that Chirac’s trying to kill two birds with one stone here: divert attention away from France’s problematic domestic issues and increase her sphere of influence on the global field. It appears like he’s succeeded with his first objective, but failed miserably with the other at this juncture. He’s also done a masterful job of fracturing the EU (links via Instapundit).

Nice job, Jacques!

2003-03-21T19:24:00.000-05:00

This (from Andrew Sullivan) has got to be one of the funniest stories about the "peace" movement I have read in a while.

At 7th & Mish, by the U.S. Court House, I sat in a van driven by Nathaniel Shelton, who transports patients to and from Saint Francis Memorial Hospital. We were stuck, along with a fleet of Fed Ex drivers, just after 9 a.m., as demonstrators rode bikes in a circle in the intersection, closed it off with colored string, and berated the truck drivers. "It's almost as if they were protesting us," said Shelton. Indeed, the enmity and ridicule of the protesters was directed at working people trying to get their work done. The massive Court House, a seat of government power, was ignored. At the Civic Center, a group of demonstrators defecated. Then they left, leaving the mess to be cleaned up by others. Not only disgusting, but this idiocy belittles the proud tradition of civic protest in our national history

Brrrr!

2003-03-21T16:28:00.000-05:00

So Far, So Good

Things seem to be going pretty well thus far with the war. I was extremely heartened with the report that Iraqis in the first liberated town have mostly welcomed the coalition forces with open arms.

"Americans very good," Ali Khemy said. "Iraq wants to be free."

Some chanted, "Ameriki! Ameriki!"

Many others in the starving town just patted their stomachs and raised their hands, begging for food.

A man identifying himself only as Abdullah welcomed the arrival of the U.S. troops: "Saddam Hussein is no good. Saddam Hussein a butcher."

Of course, it is just one town out of a country of, say, 23 million people, but it is very promising.

One wonders what the reaction of those who vehemently opposed the war would be if this initial Iraqi sentiment was universal throughout the whole country? It would most certainly through a lot of egg on the faces who tried to stump the US-UK initiative. Glen Reynolds quotes a French politician:

Liberation reported that Dominique Dord, a deputy from the majority UMP party, said during Tuesday's assembly debate, "We would look really stupid if Iraqis applaud the arrival of Americans."

Looks like that’s already happening.

2003-03-21T00:01:00.000-05:00

Thanks for Linking Me!

Thanks to Nicholas Packwood for linking my entry! It's very humbling to have something of yours showcased in a place that gets a lot of viewership. I'm not particularily interested in generating a lot of traffic, but the notion is appreciated!

2003-03-20T21:28:00.000-05:00

A Ray of Light?

Canada has been in my mind a lot lately, especially with the way they've reacted to the whole Iraq situation. Although I wish Canada would support the US in our endeavors, it is a sovereign nation and has the right to choose its own destiny and policy. But the way the Liberal Government came about their Iraq decision was indeed disappointing and quite disgraceful. Even worse, in my opinion, was the aftermath and the way many ministers and MPs chose to thumb their nose at the US just for the sake of doing so.

Never in my life have I been as embarrassed and ashamed as I am to have Canadian citizenship and this only drives home the lack of regret I have for leaving that country.

Still, there seems to be a silver lining in the clouds. I came across this website from Colby Cosh which gives me a glimmer of hope that there still are some sane people remaining in the land where I grew up and that this knee-jerk, ignorant, arrogant and irrational anti-Americanism is not as pervasive as the Canadian Government extols. Unfortunately, these voices do not have much influence and they are quickly quieted down by the arrogant, unrepentant Left that has a foothold on the politics.

Still, where there is a voice, there is always hope...

2003-03-20T21:02:00.000-05:00

A Delicatessen's Perspective

I was out last for the evening last night with some friends. On my way back, I stopped by the neighborhood deli, as I usually do, owned by this Israeli-Arab gentleman. For a little background, he’s a Coptic, not a Muslim, so he will have a vastly different perspective on the Middle-East than other Arabs would. Arab Christians are very bitter at the Muslims and neither group gets along with each other. Just look what happened in Lebanon during their civil war?

Anyways, we got talking about politics as we usually do and, being that I was away from a media source for a few hours, I asked him if he heard anything about the war starting. He told me that the bombing had started, which surprised me as I thought that an invasion wouldn’t take place for a few days.

I then asked him if he thought it would be a good thing or a bad thing to go into Iraq. He said it would ultimately bring democracy in the region and that it would be a good thing in the long run, though he cautioned about keeping US forces in Iraq for a long time. He also thought that the new Arab media outlets like al-Jazzera, are bringing up issues that normally wouldn’t be mentioned with the government controlled press and that people are now talking and discussing things, which wasn’t the case before. He was optimistic that eventually there would have to be democratic reforms if democracy and economic prosperity in Iraq were to occur as a result from Saddam’s disposal.

Of course, much of this depends on how successful the war is and he also cautioned that Islamic groups could take advantage of this reformation movement and move things in their favor. I guess it could really go either way and we truly have a "hit or miss" situation.

2003-03-20T20:46:00.000-05:00

Liberal Links?!?!

Most of my links are to generally conservative blogs on the web. Mostly because I agree with their viewpoints and I like the manner at which they present their arguments. However, I will be adding a few “liberal” blogs to my list now.

I have problems with how some (ahem…most) on the left express their viewpoints and they way they apparently shove them in one’s face without presenting a well thought-out argument or allowing or reacting to criticism. Brad DeLong and Mark Kleinman are much different. They present sane ideas from a liberal perspective and reason and back their claims up very well. Moreover, they are open to the opposing and differing viewpoints and deal with them in a mature, respectful fashion. I actually enjoy reading their blogs, sometimes even more than reading the “conservative” ones.

DeLong, who is an economics professor at Berkeley, was an economist with the Clinton Administration. Say what you want about Clinton, but such a position, in my opinion, commands a high degree of respect. If he wasn’t competent, then he wouldn’t have been in such a highly influential place. Supposedly, he was one of the brains behind Hillary’s famous bungled healthcare initiative. I have differing opinions (not to say that I am an authority) than DeLong about how to deal with healthcare being that I worked in the field, but it is interesting to hear his perspective and the story behind the proposal’s conception.

They and perhaps other liberals will be linked to my site from now on. I’m on the fence about Max Sawicky. He’s a brilliant economist, but I think he goes a bit overboard with his views.

2003-03-18T17:19:00.000-05:00

Sorry!

Apologies for not posting for a while! I guess I’ve been too busy following the news and I’ve been a tad lazy. I’ll try to post more often.

Anyways, J M Varty, a Canadian blogger, speaks about his choices for a Republican to be President and thinks there are about ten Republicans who are probably better presidential material than Bush. I would somewhat agree. I don’t consider myself to be affiliated with any party, but I generally am in more agreement with the Republicans than the Democrats. However, I don’t think Bush is the best guy for the job. I’m sure there are people within his own cabinet who are much better (Powell, Rice and Rumslfeld come to mind), let alone those who are not cabinet members who would make outstanding heads of state (McCain at the forefront, but I also like Bill Frist and Pat Roberts).

As for Bush, he got his war. I believe there are many good reasons to enter military conflict with Iraq, but I don’t think he did a good job of presenting this case to others, including the audience at home. Indeed, he did a masterful job with his speech last night. I especially liked the ultimatum to Saddam and his sons. Still, I can’t help but think how things would be different at this point if he went about his arguments differently and didn’t appear so eager and forceful to enter conflict. We probably wouldn’t be having as much uncertainty as we’ve been getting the last little while.

Well, at least the markets haven’t reacted so negatively. Surprisingly, they’ve gone up the last few days. I would have expected the opposite, but perhaps people are expecting a quick victory. Let’s hope it comes to that…

2003-03-08T16:15:00.000-05:00

Interesting editorial from the National Review on a Conservative movement in Europe. Some hopeful signs.

2003-03-07T10:59:00.000-05:00

Bush Just Doesn’t Get It

First off, what was the point of his news conference last night? It didn’t accomplish much except raise fears . Pretty useless as far as I’m concerned and absolutely nothing new was introduced.

The jobless rate, on the other hand, increased much higher than was anticipated. Over 300,000 jobs lost on February alone! That’s repulsive and Bush isn’t doing a damn thing about it. People don’t care about Iraq, they want jobs and they want them now. I’ve said this before and I will say it again, the Iraq issue is the only thing that is dragging down this economy.

The consensus among economists is that, once the U.S. clears up its problems in Iraq, businesses will start spending and hiring again, driven by super-low interest rates, a hoped-for rebound in stock prices and other factors.

"The fact that the dollar is weakening makes the export sector more competitive, and inventories are extremely lean, so companies will have to rebuild them at some point," said UBS Warburg senior economist Jim O'Sullivan. "There are pluses out there, and I think they'll start to win out. When the Iraqi uncertainty fades, we'll start to see companies invest more and hire more, and that'll feed on itself."

There, it’s been said.

2003-02-27T12:53:00.000-05:00

You see why I left Canada? Disappointing.

Update: Even more disturbing is that so many people agree with her!

2003-02-26T22:11:00.000-05:00

Another typically excellent post by Steven Den Beste of the USS Clueless. I read this guy’s work daily and he never ceases to amaze me with the simple clarity he sees in issues. There are a few things I think he (and others throughout the blogshpere) have omitted that are huge factors which will play a major role with this issue and our standing in the world because of it:

One is the fact that the Arab media is much more sophisticated, driven, global and expansive than in the past. Al-Jazerra is the most watched channel in the Arab world and they are anything but pro-American. Although a lot of good came out of the campaign in Afghanistan, al-Jazerra did not present it that way and many hearts in the Arab World that we could have won werel ost, not particularly because of what we did, but because of the way it was presented. This ties into my second point;
During the first Gulf War, the Western and, specifically the European media in general were quite supportive of the campaign and hardly anti-American. This is not the case today. The European media has been playing on the war fears of a jittery European public and exasperating them with the occasional (well, not really occasional) story that presents the US in a negative light. This has probably put our country in the lowest standing in the world’s view in perhaps a generation. Whether it is our fault or not (I think Bush is partially, but not entirely, to blame for this), all the good will we generated as a result of the 9/11 attacks has been lost and replaced with fear and disgust. No longer are we perceived to be allies, but rather enemies. This is felt by our supposed friends -- the British, French, Germans and Canadians, among a few. Le Figaro, the BBC and CBC certainly exponent these negative sentiments. I would only expect these antics to increase in the event of a war -- a war that the elites of these media entities don’t agree with;
As well, regardless of the results of the war and even if Iraq becomes a successful democracy, there will always be people who hate us just because we are who we are and because of our standing. Nothing will satisfy the tyrants like bin Laden, Saddam and Kim Jong-il or the likes of Chomsky, Vidal Gore or Pilger of the far-left who call for nothing short of our annihilation. A successful campaign in Iraq will only lessen our standing in their eyes all the more more since it exemplifies everything that they hate: the fact we are a powerful nation capable of influencing and changing things to our benefit, regardless of whether it benefits the world as a whole or not. Maybe these people don’t like Saddam, per se, but they certainly respect him for standing up to what he and many others see as the great evil. And that evil is the USA. A decisive victory with beneficial results will make these people all the more adamant and driven to take us down.

Point is that we’re always going to be hated no matter what we do and there are forces around that are driving this point home. I lived in Canada during a time when Bush wasn't President and nobody really had any beef with the US and I can say with absolute certainty that there was a portion of the population that absolutely hated the US for being what it was -- the US. I don’t think any nation (indeed including our own) is bereft of individuals who think along the same lines.

I guess time will tell whether I am right or not or whether these minds and the mode of which these messages are propelled will change.

2003-02-24T17:35:00.000-05:00

Krauthamer Editorial

Excellent editorial by the Washington Post' Charles Krauthammer on the differing political views between Eastern and Western Europe. I especially liked this bit:

Europe did not take to the streets against America last weekend; only Western Europe did. The streets of Eastern Europe were silent. The Poles, and their Eastern European neighbors, have an immediate personal experience of life under tyranny -- and of being liberated from that tyranny by American power. The French and their neighbors are six decades removed from their liberation. They think freedom is as natural as the air they breathe, rather than purchased at the price of blood -- American blood in no small measure.

This division in experience sets the stage for the division in politics. And for France's fury at finding an American fifth column in the New Europe. When 13 Eastern European states came out in support of the United States on Iraq, Chirac lost all reserve. His scolding of the Eastern Europeans has inadvertently demonstrated how much France's current dispute with the United States is not really about Iraq.

And now for something scary:

The world has not become bipolar. But we have just witnessed the first serious breach of the post-Cold War unipolarity -- engineered not, as many expected, by Russia or China, but by France. France is reaching to become not only the leading power in Europe (hence the pique with those pesky Eastern Europeans) but also the leader of a new pole of world power opposite the American "hyperpower."

Not a bad vocation for a country whose closest brush with glory and empire today consists of patrolling the swamps of Ivory Coast.

Just imagine: France as a superpower. More cheese for everyone...scary thought indeed.

2003-02-21T16:45:00.000-05:00

Cool Image

Vancouver's Airport looks stunning in this photo, courtesy of Spaceimaging.com.

Careful, it takes a while to load if you don't have broadband.

2003-02-21T16:41:00.000-05:00

Aviation Related

Some interesting news:

Air Canada will reduce capacity to some Northeast US destinations. Air travel is still way, way down on the East Coast, so this does not surprise me at all. Sad to see that the industry is going through it's doldrums.
Lufthansa is studying the the possibility of returning to Montreal. They left Montreal a few years ago due to poorer yields compared to Toronto.
JetBlue is starting new service from Long Beach, California to Atlanta. Smart move, in my opinion.
And United Airlines' unions want CEO Glen Tilton fired. They're upset that he's asking for more concessions from them. Either that or go bankrupt! No wait...they already are.

2003-02-21T14:19:00.000-05:00

Lower Taxes for Canada?

I’ll believe it when I see it! After passing a budget with a gargantuan spending increase, Canadian Finance Minister John Manley says his next goal would be to lower taxes to around the US level, or possibly even lower. Now, I’ve heard this all before – the Liberals keep promising to lower taxes, but they always break their promises. I have little reason to believe that Manley will act differently this time around. He’s not known to be a fiscal conservative – quite the opposite, really – and his first budget significantly increased spending.

Now he’s seeking the party leadership. Yikes!

Canada could do with a tax cut. The country has tremendous potential and I bet if it had a tax rate similar or lower than the US’s, loosened some of the regulations and maybe adopted a bit more of an entrepreneurial spirit, it would be the richest country in the world.

Still, this proposal is a pipedream and to further prove this, I’ll quote the esteemed [sic] Prime Minister from the same article:

In Halifax Thursday night, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was unapologetic about the budget's lack of tax breaks.

"Are we spending too much on health care, to lift children out of poverty, on Canadian universities, on farmers, to clean up water and sewage on aboriginal communities?" Mr. Chrétien asked those attending a $400-a-plate fundraising dinner for the Nova Scotia Liberal Party.

"Health care is the most important priority of Canadians. And we delivered funding for fundamental reforms. The last time we gave $23-billion, 70 to 80 per cent of that money did not go to any reform."

Says it all...pipedream indeed.

2003-02-21T13:52:00.000-05:00

Alberta vs. the Rest of Canada

An interesting article in the National Post about Alberta Premier Ralph Klein and his reluctance to go along with Ottawa’s line and threat of Alberta separation.

The speech, which was read by the Lieutenant-Governor but written by the Premier's office, warned the federal Liberal government had "compromised" Alberta's position in Confederation. It went on to predict further disputes unless Ottawa's approach to federal-provincial relations changes.

Later, Mr. Klein pointed out that his party has agreed to debate Alberta's place in Canada at its convention next month -- a sign, he said, of growing dissatisfaction over such issues as Kyoto, gun registration and health care funding.

But so far the Premier has been careful to attribute those sentiments to others in the province. He insists that he and the majority of Albertans remain committed Canadians.

"I'm talking about being a full, productive and valued partner in Confederation," he said yesterday. "I'm talking about strengthening Confederation and [Ottawa] listening to Albertans, because we contribute so much to Confederation."

I grew up an Alberta and I can safely say that this discontent towards the rest of the country certainly exists. I also think it is a lot worse than the article portrays. This has been around for a long time, pretty much since the start of the National Energy Policy under Trudeau’s reign, but it has hit high steam right now. It’s gotten so bad now that there’s even an independence movement to separate from the rest of the country. This was absolutely unheard of a few years ago.

The reasons for this are many, but I think it generally stems from the fact that Alberta is indeed different from the rest of Canada. For those of you unfamiliar with the provinces in Canada, Alberta is very similar to Texas – energy-based economy, lots of livestock, big spaces, frontier spirit, lower taxes, etc. Indeed, the city of Calgary is very similar to the city of Dallas, compared to, say, Toronto or Vancouver. Albertans are generally more right-wing and conservative and usually think individually rather than collectively – personal freedom and space is important to most Albertans.

Gun-rights, the Kyoto treaty and healthcare spending are big issues in Alberta and are issues where Albertans have had little to no say in how they were dealt with. For example, Prime Minister Jean Chretien ratified the Kyoto treaty, which calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, at the beginning of the year without consulting the Premiers of each province. From what I read, he did it based on a “gut feeling”.

That’s pretty careless, if you ask me. For one thing, oil and gas is the main staple of the Alberta economy, which is quite strong compared to the rest of the country. Implementation of this accord would severely impact oil and gas production and would damage the economy. The fact that Chretien did this with no consultation and, by most accounts, little research is absolutely asinine. Indeed, the effects are starting to be felt. Although some companies have publicly stated (probably under political pressure) that it would not have a huge impact on production, a few friends of mine in the industry up there have told me that exploration is at a halt and that oil and gas companies are not hiring anymore.

But this isn’t about oil; it is about the ability to make your own decisions, and that is just not happening in Canada, especially under the current system. Kyoto is just one example. Generally, Albertans feel that the rest of the country takes advantage of them because they have a strong economy and they are the richest province. Transfer payments are another case in point. Inefficient socialist economies in the East receive the surplus made from Alberta.

And certainly, the rest of the country does not understand Alberta. I lived in Toronto for a short time and I found that a lot of people there are completely oblivious of what goes on outside their city, let alone in the rest of the country. They get the impression that Albertans are a bunch of hicks and farmers who just live off their oil revenues. And that simply isn’t true. OK, so it’s isolated and not the most exciting place in the world and oil is a major contributor to the economy, but Alberta’s economy is fairly diversified and it isn’t all about oil.

That’s the problem with Canada. You have a small geographical region (Montreal to Toronto) hoarding the recourses of the rest of the country for itself and the rest of the country is sick and tired of acting like a slave. Certainly doesn’t bode well for the country’s future. Especially with a belligerent federal leader:

"Perhaps he failed to take notice of the Prime Minister's demeanor at the First Minister's Conference relative to health care."

Mr. Chrétien reportedly made a take-it-or-leave it offer to the provinces at the meeting, then promptly walked out of the room.

Back to Ralph Klein. Love him or hate him, he’s done a lot of good for Alberta’s interests and the economy and anyone who lives there would admit that he’s turned the province into major player. I can’t think of a Premier off hand who has promoted and stood by his home province as much as Klein has. So, I sympathize with his concerns and I wouldn’t shed a tear if Alberta separated from the rest of the country. In fact, I think it would arguably benefit them as a whole since Confederation sure as hell isn’t benefiting them right now.

2003-02-21T12:11:00.000-05:00

Gas Explosion in Staten Island

Yikes! First we get the heavy snowstorm, and now a huge gas explosion. Doesn't appear to be caused by terrorism and at least nobody was seriously hurt. Economists say that local gas prices should increase for the short-term because of this.

2003-02-20T14:05:00.000-05:00

Dead Job Market

I’ve been out of a steady job since the summer. I am (or have tried) working as a freelance consultant. Prior to that, I worked as a financial analyst with the New York City Office of Management and Budget. Honestly, I hated that job. It wasn’t the work itself (well, sort of), just the atrociously long hours, horrible pay and some of the managerial staff and the way they treated their employees. Perhaps (and most likely) it was confined to my task force because I’ve heard other units were much better to work for.

Due to looming budget crisis resulting from 9/11, I was given a choice to accept a package and leave or most likely get laid-off in the near future and get no such compensation. Didn’t matter; I was looking for a new job anyways and they weren’t going to allow me to transfer to another unit. Besides, what choice did I really have? I was going to go one way or the other; might as well do what was best for me.

I used this excessive extra time as an opportunity to relax and travel a bit considering I worked torturous hours with OMB and had little time off. I was also under the expectation that the job market would improve dramatically. “Things couldn’t possibly get any worse than they were,” I thought. And indeed, I was getting callbacks the first few months, even a few interviews. Sadly, nothing materialized from them, but it gave me some encouragement and some hope. Things were definitely looking up.

Then things slowed down dramatically late last summer and I decided to go to Korea for my friend’s wedding. I figured since I had the extra time and I might not get as much time off when I get back to work, I’ll go, and thus I went.

I came back with the expectation that things would improve since it was September and the job market usually picks up then. It didn’t. So, I thought I would offer my services as a consultant to keep myself occupied and maybe earn a little extra cash.

First few months of this were OK, and work was fairly stable up until the end of November. After that, things dived to an abyss. There’s absolutely no work now in that regard and the job market itself is dead. I have had a few interviews with some “headhunters”, but they haven’t delivered on their promises. Indeed, this is apparently worst hiring slump in 20 years. Sobering thought, especially when it’s reported that efficiency has improved to such an extent that companies don't really need to hire anyone else.

How and where did things take a turn for the worse? My guess is that “war jitters” are scaring people away from hiring. People are concerned over the prospects of a war with Iraq. Employers are not afraid of the war itself, but they are worried about the potential fallout from such a war, whatever it may be. It’s this uncertainty that’s preventing hiring. No economy can boom when fear and uncertainty are pervasive.

I blame Bush for this dragging recession. Sure, we were starting to go through a deceleration at the end of the Clinton era and 9/11 exacerbated things a great deal. But I think Bush could do a lot more to tide the uncertainty that prevails in today’s economy. Rushing to war with Iraq isn’t going to give people the comfort they need. Furthermore, his attitude towards domestic issues has been bewildering at best. Most polls I’ve seen indicate that Americans are most concerned about domestic economic issues rather than Iraq. Yet to me, Bush seems to be ignoring the matter that concerns most Americans. I really haven’t seen a cohesive plan from him or anyone in his administration to kick start the economy and create jobs.

So where does this leave me? I don’t know. I seem screwed no matter what I do. I’ve talked to a few people “in the know” and they don’t think things will really get that much better job-wise in the short-term. Though my desire is to stay in the tri-state region, I am open to other opportunities. Thing is, the economy is pretty shitty everywhere, so I haven’t had much luck in that regard. My parents want me to go back to school, but I’m just not ready to go through that commitment now and, quite honestly, I’m sick of school. I don’t really know if it’s that good of an option either considering that just about everyone who is unemployed now is upgrading and they’ll all be competing with each other when the job market improves.

It seems to me that my parents want me to move back to Canada. They don’t like New York and never came to the complete acceptance that I moved here, even though it has been a few years. Canada’s not a bad place (at least some parts), but it’s just incompatible with me and I never liked living there. Besides, the job market, contrary to what the government always says, is really suffering just like everywhere else; and it would be more difficult for me to find a job from up there because I’m further away from a major population center than I am now. I’ll add that I have looked at some jobs in Canada, but have heard nothing back.

I have a few contingencies that I’m looking into right now. And, yes, school is one of them. I’m looking into Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University as I’ve always had a love of aviation and perhaps a degree from there would help me get a job in that field. Tuition and the prospect of paying off the subsequent student loans are daunting, however. I’ve never been in debt my entire life and I certainly don’t want to start anytime soon! Furthermore, it is never a good idea to specialize a Masters degree because it will limit your prospects of employment.

I’m also considering teaching English overseas, like in Japan or Taiwan. I’d love the exposure to a foreign country, but I don’t really like teaching. Indeed, I did tutor ELS students back when I was in college and didn’t enjoy it. As well, once you complete your tenure, you really don’t get any relevant work experience from this and you’re essentially at square one when you finish.

The military is another possibility.

All I can say is I don’t like the position I’m in. Sadly, I know I’m not the only one in it which makes it all the more difficult for me to get out.

UPDATE: Silver lining in the clouds? Perhaps. In this Article, which is a month old, ABC's financial expert Melanie Hobson states that the East Coast, and New York City in particular, are poised to have strong economic and job growth this year. She also says that the outlook for the West looks pretty dreadful. All this remains to be seen, but I hope they're right (though not about the West looking bleak!).

2003-02-19T11:35:00.000-05:00

John Lloyd Editorial.

Another excellent editorial in the Globe and Mail. John Lloyd is a British journalist based in London, but the Globe usually has balananced and well thought-out pieces like this one. Here he questions the motives of the anti-war protestors who demonstrated last week-end.

What's extraordinary is that these mistakes or miscalculations have been put on the same moral level as the humanitarian atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. The protesters said, over and over again, that the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom had forfeited their "trust." This seemed to justify, of itself, opposition to war.

But, I would ask the demonstrators, would not a parallel be to have seen Winston Churchill, in 1940, as a man too compromised by his anti-Labour past to support in the struggle against the Nazis? Bad arguments and faulty dossiers are bad. A totalitarian regime that commits crimes against humanity is something other than bad -- is it not?

I would also want to ask them if they agreed in any measure with Tony Blair (boo, hiss) when he said in a speech last week that Saddam Hussein's regime, by diverting its permitted income from oil to conspicuous presidential consumption or acquiring weaponry, was ensuring that many children died from diseases arising from malnutrition. An end to the regime, Mr. Blair claimed, might save more lives than it cost. Of course, the fact that Tony Blair (resign!) said it, would make the fact suspect. But might not a new regime brought in under Western auspices be better for Iraqis than the Ba'ath Party rule?

Refined and well-written and puts things into perspective.

2003-02-19T02:27:00.000-05:00

Tom Friedman Editorial

Another brilliant piece by the NY Times' Tom Friedman (you need to register to see the article, but it's free and doesn't take much time.). This guy says it how it is. I do believe that Bush is to blame for his troubles with alliance building. The only reason I've been somewhat convinced that war in Iraq is necessary is because of Colin Powell and Tony Blair. Bush is a poor statesman and handled a lot of issues really poorly. I agree with a lot of his policies (Kyoto, World Court), just not the way he goes about them.

Not to say that I approve of the French and German handling of the current crisis -- that's just reprehensible. Also, much of the animosity towards Bush was there before the 2000 elections (believe me, I lived in Canada at that time and people up there prayed that Gore would win; PM Chretien even said publically that he wanted Gore in office.). Still, Bush's handling and attitude on many issues (except 9/11, which I thought he did well) after he got into office was just piss-poor and we've lost a lot of respect because of that.

2003-02-19T01:53:00.000-05:00

The new Left

Yeah, yeah...I know it's the Weekly Standard, but this article hits the nail on the head when it comes to today's Leftist movement. Brilliant writing by Fred Barnes. Heads up to The Lofty for this link.

2003-02-19T00:28:00.000-05:00

Just added an "about me" section to the page.

2003-02-18T12:28:00.000-05:00

Great to hear the planes.

Well, it's good to see the planes come back. We've had an absolutely horrible week-end weather-wise in New York City, essentially shutting down the whole area. Airports, train stations and roads were adversely affected by what the media calls the worst blizzard in seven years. I live right under the landing path of La Guardia Airport in Queens and can hear the rumble and roar of planes when the zip by on route to Runway 4 every thirty seconds. It can get annoying at times, especially during the evenings when one wants to sleep. But it's good to hear them right now. Things are slowly getting back to normal.

2003-02-18T11:16:00.000-05:00

Korean Tregedy

Dispite my misgivings about Korean politics and the Korean anti-American protests, this is a terrible tregedy. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

2003-02-15T17:48:00.000-05:00

It starts when they're young...

When I first read this article, I almost fell out of my chair...literally. The gist of it is about these two parents who are self-proclaimed "pacifists", complaining about the fact that the word "gun" is was used in their child's grade one spelling bee:

Mrs. Sousa wrote a letter to her daughter's teacher describing her views on the word gun, her unease with any child learning to spell the word, a few alternatives, and the wish to speak to the teacher about its inclusion on the list.

"The word gun is synonymous with death. I'm racking my brain trying to figure out why a seven-year-old would need to learn this word," said Mrs. Sousa, who admits she was hesitant to bring her views forward for fear of backlash from the school toward her daughter, and because some may view her problem with the word gun as another political correctness issue gone too far.

"For a split second I considered whether or not I should raise this issue, but I knew I had to stand up for what I believe in. This was not right," she said.

"I don't think this is an issue of political correctness. It's an issue of protecting your child from violence. Guns are violent. End of story," said Mrs. Sousa.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at the inanity of this whole thing. As a result of Mr. and Mrs. Sousa's protests, the Upper Canada District School Board, which comprises of the Sousa's community Lombardy, banned the word "gun" from being used in all future spelling contests. Can you say"Orwellian"? That's what it sounds like to me.

Now, I grew up in Canada -- lived there for fourteen years; my family remains there; I have Canadian citizenship. Indeed, I am Canadian. And though I don't live there anymore, I keep up with the news and mood of the place and I visit often to see my family. I am concerned with what goes on since I still have ties there.

Generally, I like Canada and think it is a good place to be -- probably one of the top five nations to live in the world. What I don't like is the prevailing all-encompassing PC atmosphere that has been suffocating the country for the last ten years. Not to say that it is pervasive with every individual up there, but I think a good deal of Canadian citizenry adhere to this mind-set, especially on the Eastern side of the country. If such sentiment wasn't popular, then why are we seeing censorship in the schools? What is wrong with the word "gun"?

Child: "Mommy! Mommy! That police man is carrying a funny looking thing on his belt! What is it?"

Mom: "I don't know, sweetheart. There's no such word."...at least in Canada.

So, it's not really that bad...yet. But when is this all going to end? And what is this really going to accomplish? How is omitting a common word from a school's vocabulary going to improve society and make it more peaceful? Obviously the Upper Canada School Board's administrators took the Sousa's claims to heart, agreed with them and acted accordingly. Indeed, if the Sousa's were the only ones, such action would not have been taken.

To be honest, I don't really care about the gun issue one way or another. I don't own a gun, never have and most likely never will. I don't see anything wrong with responsible people owning guns. On the flip side, I can't see how some could argue that a gun is not a dangerous "tool", "weapon" or whatever other type of instrument you might call it. Deaths have resulted from guns -- accidental or not. Either way, there are good arguments for and against gun control and I'm not taking a side on either viewpoint yet. But it does disturb me when a few individuals can erupt a change in a legality because of word affiliations. The fact that the word "gun" has certain semantics is irrelevant. I can't see why children should not be taught about the existence of guns and what they do. If anything, shying away from the issue would make matters much worse as children would not even begin to comprehend what guns are and what their purpose is. If guns are so bad, then why not teach that idea in class instead of hiding it?

The idea of masking and shying away from a problem troubles me and I find it downright frightening that a government would wield as much power as they do in this case. Banning guns is one thing, but banning the use of the word is simply beyond belief. And that's the thing: it's more than just banning the use of a single word. It shows you the underlying ideals that make up Canada -- afraid to look issues in the eye and tackle them head on. This is a simple denial of the issues and problems facing the society today; and in the event that one confronts a matter that is of concern, the choice is to masquerade and avoid it entirely. It has been this way the ten years in Canada and nothing has been accomplished in this time. And if things keep going the way they are, nothing will be accomplished either. Sad indeed...even sadder that it begins in school.

2003-02-06T02:01:00.000-05:00

To War; or not to War

I’ve read enough news stories and remarks about Powell’s presentation today and about going to war with Iraq in general. I’ll give my opinion on in and highlight some of the pros and cons about such a campaign.

To be honest, I wasn’t totally thrilled about the prospects of going to war – and I don’t think too many people would be. I mean, it’s war; people die; innocent lives get killed. Those should be enough reasons to throw one off that argument. Furthermore, I didn’t see Bush’s reason to rush to war. He and some of the other so-called “hawks” in his administration seemed to be moving towards that direction in full steam, flattening anyone in their path who challenged or deviated from their argument.

Then I started watching and listening to the anti-war movement, who were motivated by leftists such as John Pilger and Noam Chomsky. The fact that any such movement would be organized by ANSWER or the likes of those two clowns garners suspicion in my mind, not to mention the minds of other moderate or level-headed people. I’m against any war in principle, but I don’t like the arguments they brought forth, which makes me all the more skeptical of their movement, motives and, ultimately, the cause they rally for (or against).

I’m going to outline a few arguments for and against war with Iraq. I was impressed with Powell’s speech and if anyone would be able to convince me for the justification of war, it would be him. Still, one would always hope for a peaceful solution. I guess I’m still confused, but I’ll try to give some reasonings on both sides.

Arguments for War

1. Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant.

There are no bones about it; Saddam is a bad man. From gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq, to murdering Shia Muslims in Southern Iraq, to his brutal iron-fisted control over his citizens, Saddam is about as bad a dictator as they come. Iraqi people are oppressed and suffering thanks to him. Sure, there are other terrible dictators in this world (Kim Jong-il comes to mind first), even some pretty bad ones in his region, but few can match cruelty and callousness...at least in the Middle East. This argument is pretty straight forward.

One could also tie in that he’s a stupid dictator who has squandered Iraq’s vast oil wealth and ruined his country’s potential. Iraq really could be an extremely wealthy country from its oil assets alone. Anyone who cannot take advantage of this obvious blessing is a truly brainless man.

2. Saddam has weapons of mass destructions (WMD) and isn’t hesitant to use them.

I don’t think even the most left-wing, anti-war advocate can deny this fact. Saddam does have WMD and has used them before. He certainly did in the past and if it wasn’t for the UN inspections, his WMD program would probably be at a more advanced state than it is in now. I have no doubt in my mind that he would have every intention of pursuing them even if he didn’t have them.

Some people might argue and say “so what? America has them too.” True, the US, along with France, UK, North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, among others, have WMD. But those countries are relatively stable and none of them really have the intention of using them against others. North Korea is hardly a likable regime, but I don’t think that Kim Jong-il is so stupid nor would he risk using them at the expense of his regime. Besides, he’s never used them before.

Saddam is a different story. He has used them in the past against the Kurds (his own Iraqis, mind you) in the North and against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. It has also been said that he has killed more people through his WMD (more specifically, through chemical weapons) than anyone else.

3. Saddam is a threat to regional stability.

An absolute given, considering that he’s invaded two of his neighbors -- Iran and Kuwait. Say what you want about the wars and who you sided with, but there is absolutely no denying that he was the aggressor. Who is to say that he won’t do it again?

Furthermore, he did launch Scud missile attacks against Israel during the Gulf War, even though they didn’t participate in the battles. I’ve also read articles describing him as believing that he is the modern version of Saladin. For those of you unfamiliar with Saladin, he was a sultan in the 12th century who kicked the Crusaders out of Jerusalem. He’s considered a hero in Arab folklore. An important (and ironic) thing to note is that Saladin was actually a Kurd.

4. The UN’s legitimacy depends on it.

For twelve years, Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose to the UN and the international community by not complying with UN resolutions demanding that he abandon all his ambitions of WMD, as stated by UN Resolution 687. In 1998 he kicked out UN weapons inspectors, accusing some of spying for the US. Regardless, for four years, he would not allow weapons inspectors to enter the country. It took the threat of military force to change his mind. Resolution 1441 was supposed to be the be all and end all, where Iraq was supposed to finally come clean. Even Hans Blix, who has been more than generous, was doubtful of Iraq’s intention to abandon its pursuit of WMD.

Some people argue that if a war was to proceed, it should be under the guidance of the UN and that one should wait for the UN’s assessment of the situation. Well, the UN has stated that Iraq has not disarmed. Now what? How else can one react?

Res. 1441 and what results from it threatens (or determines) the viability of the UN as an entity. Never mind the farce of a country like Syria is heading the commission for human rights or that Iraq is slated to be the chair of the WMD nonproliferation committee, the UN has stated through a resolution that Iraq must disarm and disarm immediately. It is on the world’s terms, not Iraq’s. Failure of Iraq to comply, and it’s quite apparent that they haven’t, really casts doubt on the UN as an effective governing body (as if those doubts didn’t exist [sic]) and will only emphasize its joke farce of an existence. The UN’s legitimacy depends on the outcome of this matter; it can go either way.

5. Oil is a valuable commodity and worth fighting for.

I’m sure to receive flack for this argument, but let’s face it, oil is a valuable commodity. Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world. The world cannot afford to have a lunatic like Hussein control Iraq’s (or potentially the whole ME’s) vast oil wealth. For one thing, look how’s he’s running it in Iraq?

One could also argue that US forces are in Saudi Arabia essentially to protect Saudi oil interests against Saddam Hussein. US troop presence in Saudi is arguably al-Qaeda’s biggest grievance. With Saddam gone, our boys wouldn’t need to be there anymore as there as the threat from the North would be gone. Now why wasn’t this thought of during the first Gulf War? It’s funny because I haven’t seen this argument for this anywhere and I think it is a legitimate point and quite a promising opportunity.

Yeah, yeah, I know some of the environmentalists will chide me for bringing up such a possibility and suggest the investment and search of other “alternative” energy sources. But let’s face it, oil is a big part of the global economy. Not just here in the US, but also in Canada, Europe, South America, Africa and even the Middle East. Remember, oil is essentially the ME’s meal ticket and they’d be damned if they see its importance dwindle. If you think the ME is fucked up the way it is now, just imagine it if its sole source of income vanishes…not a pretty thought. Regardless of Kyoto and other movements to limit the role of oil as an energy source, it will take years and years to really perfect and take full advantage of these proposed “alternative” energy sources. For better or worse, the global economy is currently dependant on oil to keep it churning; abruptly changing that fuel would wreak havoc of massive proportions. Besides, wars have been fought over commodities before. Sierra Leone and Angola war over diamonds is just one example.

6. Saddam as ties to terrorists.

This has been proven time in and time out. From cash gifts to families of suicide bombers (and no matter how you look at it, it is encouraging terrorism and murder) to support of the ANO, MEK, PLF and other Palestinian terrorist groups, Saddam has a history of supporting terrorism and this has got to stop. There has yet to be a definitive link between al-Qaeda and Hussein, but the US and Britain have made claims to the contrary. Imagine if it was true?

7. Prevent Saddam from becoming another Kim Jong-il.

It can be argued that inaction against North Korea in ’94 resulted in them being in the position that they are in now – powerful army with WMD. They are obviously a more potent force than Iraq and, potentially, a greater direct threat to the US. This is what ousting Hussein is all about – preventing another North Korea. Personally, I think Saddam is much crazier then Kim Jong-il (though I think Kim is crueler, he isn’t stupid). So far, Kim seems to be using his WMD for extortion rather than conquest. Since the Korean war, North Korea has not invaded any of its neighbors (then again, they are bordered by China, Russia, South Korea and US forces, plus Japan’s an arms length away; aside from Iran, Iraq is bordered by a bunch of pipsqueaks). One can’t say the same about Saddam. As mentioned before, he used his WMD before and has invaded his neighbors. Just think about the damage he could do with an arsenal and army like North Korea’s? I shudder to envision the consequences.

Arguments against War

1. Loss of innocents.

This is a very valid concern and in any war there will be civilian casualties. A war with Iraq would certainly be no different. Estimates vary on the potential effect and it’s really predict such on an event that has not occurred yet, but some groups say that as many as 500,000 could die in a US-led war. It is in the realm of possibility, especially with today’s advanced weaponry.

2. Loss of Allied soldiers.

This is another concern. There will be soldiers killed in this war, as there will be in any war. I’d prefer to see the soldiers safe than at war. I’m sure everyone else feels the same way.

3. Bad time, considering the economy.

This is something that pertains to me personally, especially with my employment situation. I’m having a hell of a time finding stable work because of the shitty economy right now. The economy is in the shitter and because of jitters and now there’s talk of a new recession in the advent of a second Gulf War. Furthermore, companies just aren’t hiring because of all the uncertainty arising from a potential war. It was just reported today that the economy is in its worst hiring slump in 20 years.

As someone with an economics background, I sort of understand the basics surrounding the economy and workings. Some of the essential elements for a strong and growing economy are currently in place – low interest rates, high consumer confidence, and stable currency. What’s really jittering people today is fear. Fear of war, fear of future terrorist attacks, fear of the fallouts of war, etc. Fear discourages risk, which dampens investment, which slows down the economy. It says multitudes when you have record low interest rates coupled with low capital investment. This means one thing and one thing only – emotion is at play here and people are just scared shitless of what will happen next.

4. Cost of war.

It’s impossible to predict how much this war will cost, but some say it could cost as much as $50-60 Billion. That’s a lot of money and it’s money that could be spent on programs here at home. Not to mention that we’re already going to deal with a record deficit the next year or so. Can we really afford war now?

5. Saddam is a stability force in the region.

OK…So, I said that he was a part of regional instability, but I think you could also argue the opposite. Iraq is a very diverse country with multitudes of ethnic groups. These groups have historically not gotten along and there has always been infighting inside the Iraqi region. Since Saddam took power, infighting has been kept to a bare minimum. You might not agree with the way he does it, but he keeps a tight ship and Iraq does have some semblance of unity at present. Who knows what would happen if he’s gone? Would the Kurds and Shias break away and form their own countries? What would happen to Iraq’s sizable Assyrian community? Those questions remain unanswered.

6. A war might further aggravate the “Arab street”.

The Arab world is already a basket case and inflamed the way it is. What would happen with a war against Iraq? Would this incite further violence? It’s hard to tell, but the Arab world seems to ignite over the minutest state of affairs, so why expect anything less? The question is: how bad will it get? I certainly don’t want to see a long line of Arabs awaiting instructions from Osama bin Ladin to do his dirty deeds.

7. Potential terrorist backlash and deviance from terrorism focus.

I think this is the strongest argument against a war. It was reported today that al-Qaeda is still a major threat today, perhaps our most imminent one. I fear that a war with Iraq could not only sidetrack us from the war on terror, but also incite terrorists to commit more terrorist acts in retaliation to a war. Terrorism is our number one concern, not Iraq and we must not get distracted from it. Islamic Terrorism is what caused 9/11, not Saddam’s belligerence.

I also feel that the Bush Administration has been quiet about the potential terrorist fallout of an invasion of Iraq. Of course war’s going to incite anger and maybe even violence. If it does so in the ME or outside this country, maybe it’s not as much of a concern. But what happens if it is on our own soil? If there is a terrorist attack in this country as a result of an invasion of Iraq, the blood will be on Bush’s hands.

8. Iraq is not a threat to the US or any Western nation, aside from Israel.

I sort of see this point. Except through terrorism, I don’t see Iraq as an immediate threat to US soil. I don’t even think they will be a threat to us in the near future. This picture shows Iraq’s missile capability and what they will be capable of in the near future.

As you can see, none of the missiles are capable of reaching anywhere close to the continental US. Israel is a different story, but is Israel the US? No…

9. Loss of allies.

It comes as no surprise that France and Germany are speaking out against a war, though I question their motives for doing so. For whatever reason (genuine or not), much of the world is against a war. This is important for the US in the grand scheme of things and in garnering future support for whatever else we choose to do. Going to war against Iraq is going to ruffle a few (or a lot) feathers and these are feathers that will be our partners in global affairs. What concerns me most is that losing allies would undermine the joint effort against terrorism. A strong coalition has been formed and it would be absolutely criminal and very unfortunate (especially in terms of global stability) if this was broken for whatever reason.

Also, whether you’re right or wrong, who wants the rest of the world thinking you’re a bully?

10. What’s next after Saddam?

What next? Who will take over? Some of the people toted for replacement (Iraqi National Congress, Kurdish Independence Party, etc.) have less than amiable records. Furthermore, they’re exiles. It really should be up to the Iraqi people inside Iraq to determine life after Saddam…not anyone else.

This also could fracture Iraq and create a Kurdish movement to create their own state. Turkey has a large Kurdish population adjacent to those living in Northern Iraq. The last thing Turkey wants their Kurds banding with their brethren in Iraq for an independence movement. Turkey has been less than kind to their Kurdish minority.

Furthermore, this might motivate Arabs in other countries to rise up against their own crooked regimes, further destabilizing the region. This could go many ways. Islamic Fundamentalism could rise out of it, but then so could democracy.

11. Containment has worked for 12 years.

True. Saddam hasn’t invaded any of his neighbors since he’s been contained and there don’t appear to be plans for him to do so. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it…”

12. No war for oil.

Some might argue that it isn't work sending troops to fight over oil, if that is the true motive of this war. I argued for it in my reasons for war, and I think it deserves mention in the arguements against. There really is no explanation needed for this point other than "oil is not worth a human life".

Conclusion

I’m still unsure of a war, especially at this time. To me, the issues of terrorism and the economy are far more urgent than warring with Iraq. We really need to focus on terrorism and making the US much more secure. I don’t want to shift valuable resources away from fighting al-Qaeda, nor risk the coalition that has been forged fighting it. We really can’t afford another major terrorist attack, especially during this anemic global economy. This is also a concern for me. The economy is bad now and we really should focus resources in remedying it. I don’t want to be in this "employment" position anylonger and I would like to find something stable…NOW! I fear a war with Iraq will only prolong my search, which I really don’t need.

Those are my reasons for not wanting to go to war right away. I think they are practical, legitimate and most relevant to what’s at stake today. They are also the grounds the anti-war movement shuns away from, which really lessens their credibility, as if they already had any. Their garish and hypocritical protests and validations really do a legitimate cause a disservice. And it is them that sometimes make me see the reasonability of war.

2003-02-05T14:27:00.000-05:00

I saw US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address this morning. I thought it was well scripted and presented evidence in a thorough and thoughtful manor. He did present some things that I haven’t really seen or heard of before and some of the evidence, such as the audio tape, were pretty convincing. However, I never really denied the fact that Iraq had these weapons.

Some highlights include:

Iraq has hidden evidence of chemical weapon manufacturing plants by removing, then bulldozing over chemical weapons plants.
The audio tape that I alluded to earlier where two Iraqi army officials discuss hiding prohibited vehicles from the inspectors.
Claims that informants have stated that Iraq is moving these weapons to other locations to hide them from inspectors.
A recoding of instructions from a senior Iraqi officer to his subordinate not to use there term nerve when dealing with written instructions.
And finally, detailed a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

All in all, it made for interesting viewing.

I have an enormous amount of respect for Colin Powell. He’s moderate, he’s esteemed, balanced, well-spoken and patient. Bush hasn’t really sold me on the idea of going to war with Iraq and I’ve always been somewhat skeptical of the need to rush, especially in this current global environment. Colin Powell made a much more endearing case and presented it in a much more convincing way.

I’ll write more about the arguments for and against war later…

2003-02-03T18:21:00.000-05:00

Well, it’s good to see many Canadians speaking out against the CBC’s gaffe on the Columbia disaster last Saturday morning. Canadian Science Fiction author Spider Robinson makes a good point about how some immediately tried to politicize this event.

Many will spin this new disaster to support their political agenda. Within minutes of the shuttle's destruction, a CBC newstwit was asking my colleague, novelist Rob Sawyer, on the air if he didn't agree that the tragedy was caused by American arrogance in the Middle East? He was so stunned by the question he answered it.

Even the interviewee, Robert Sawyer, tries to distance his position from the CBC’s on his personal homepage.

Finally, Nicholas Packwood further accentuates his position of which I agree entirely.

I would like to see how the CBC reacts to this.

2003-02-02T15:51:00.000-05:00

In other news.

First it’s violence by soldiers, then it’s Miss Universe riots, and now we have a major blast killing as many as fifty people. I’m sure there are a lot of other happenings there that we never hear about. Sounds like a hellhole to me. I have a friend who grew up there and he even confirmed such. You’d think a country with vast amounts of energy reserves would have better fortunes rather than the decades of civil unrest and poverty that have ensued.

2003-02-02T15:29:00.000-05:00

Almost as incredible as the tragic loss of the space shuttle is the CBC’s proposal that this incident was a result of “American arrogance”. For those of you who didn’t hear about this, I’ll provide a brief synopsis. One of the CBC’s reporters was interviewing science fiction writer Robert Sawyer, who is quite knowledgeable of the space program, about the incident and asked him if he thought it was somehow related to “American arrogance”. He politely answered “no”, but he seemed pretty shocked over this question. I would be too. And if I was the CBC, I would be absolutely ashamed that one of my staff even had the gall to suggest such a thing. But then again, I wouldn’t expect anything less from the CBC. I grew up in Canada and am quite aware of their “style” of reporting. This, if anything, shows that they’re consistent. I don’t have links to the story, but it seems to be making the rounds in the internet community.

Arthur Silbur and Nicholas Packwood sum up my feelings on this perfectly. Other Packwood comments available here and here.

2003-02-02T15:13:00.000-05:00

Wow…what a week-end it’s been so far. I was helping a friend of mine move to a new apartment all day Saturday. Saturday evening, we went for supper and drinks. I came home late Saturday night and went straight to bed. I had no access to the news during this time. I woke up this morning to the shock that the space shuttle Columbia had incinerated on approach to land in Florida. WOW! Talk about a horrible way to start your day! I feel all the more ignorant for discovering this a day late! My heart goes out to the families of the crew who perished in this tragic accident. More to come a bit later...

2003-01-31T22:56:00.000-05:00

Well…this is my first stab at this. I was introduced to the blog world by accident, really. I was looking for some information on Yahoo! and stumbled upon a webpage that contained it. This was like no other site I have seen. It had all the information on that topic I was looking for, but it was presented in an opinionated/editorial form. OK, so there are editorials out there, but this was a bit different. The author actually substantiated his facts with links to news stories to make his position more credible.

As I delved into this person’s site more, I noticed links to other like-webpages fashioned much the same way. It soon became an addiction and I found myself relying more on these “blogs” for news and updates on current events than from the news sources themselves! Sure, they may be biased, but at least they’re honest about it compared to the actual media sources.

It would only be a matter of time before I decided to “take the plunge” and create my own piece of the web. And this is it. It’s not much yet and I’m still learning. I’m going to use this site to hone my HTML (and hopefully Java) skills. If this leads to eventual stardom, so be it, but at the very least, I’ll be able to improve my computer literacy.

So the saga begins…

2003-01-31T18:10:00.000-05:00

I'm just testing to see if this works.

It works