I love our base

All the recent talk about needing to expand our base and building a broad coalition has got me thinking, what is wrong with our base? Do we all have scurvy? Why is it that leaders that we elect, seem to want to run away from us as soon as possible?

So here it is, to partially make up for all the crappy things we do to them, a love letter to our base:

Dear hard-working, often-rural, middle-class, natural-born Canadian:

I love you.

As an immigrant, as a city boy, and as someone who will never be able to work as hard as you do, I want to say thank you!

I want to thank you for sticking with our party - even when we are being idiots. Even when our leaders try to outlaw your livelihood by banning tobacco, you stick by us. Even when our leaders call you hicks, you stick by us. Even when our leaders talk about reaching out to every racial group and every religion except yours, you stick by us. I sometimes wonder what you get out of voting for us.

We in the Conservative Party, and the Ontario PC Party, are like cheating husbands. We come to you every four years and say that we'll stick by you and fight for your principles, and then when you all vote for us we run to the cities and sell you out to get the postmodern liberals to vote for us. We sell you out to get the vote of people who live in downtown Toronto and wonder why their taps don't have a Perrier option.

So thank you for not asking for a divorce.

Like I said earlier, I love you!

Cheers,

bluetory

Rick Mercer Google Bomb

I think the Rick Mercer prank on Jason Kenney is fairly funny, but that doesn't mean it should go without a response.

Here it is folks:

Help me Google Bomb Rick Mercer by copying the following text into your blog or website:

<br /><a href="http://www.rickmercer.com" target="_blank">Bloodthirsty Capitalist</a><br><br />

All that code does is add a link, like this: Bloodthirsty Capitalist, to your site.

If you dont' have a website, start a new one through Blogger and copy and paste it. (don't worry about adding your site to Google, since Blogger is a Google service and it does so automatically.)

What is a Google Bomb?

A Google Bomb manipulates Google Search results by planting lots of links around the web using certain key words. This has been done by Left-wingers to link President Bush's bio with the phrase "miserable failure".

non-political, but great news!

This is great news.

Apparently

the biggest obstacle might be getting people to accept them.

I accept! I accept!

Where do I sign up?

I'm a bad driver so my girlfriend is probably happier about this than I am. Although, they have a guy from Cartoon U talking about this, so I am not sure how excited I should get.

Healthcare and NAFTA

So here is the promised post on how private involvement in healthcare would play within NAFTA.

Before I start, here is a caveat: I am, by no means, a NAFTA lawyer. I've spent the past two years studying world trade, as a topic, more intently than I've studied anything else, but that does not make me an expert.

What I can talk about is the argument that others have made, namely that if government of Canada allows for private involvement in healthcare then it cannot stop American firms from competing in the industry. This is basically true.

Various chapters of NAFTA follow very closely the WTO chapters (which I have written about below) and would yield similar results. However, what makes NAFTA different is its often misunderstood Chapter 11 on Investor Relations. (There are lots of other differences, but this is what most people have focused on.)

Chapter 11 basically says that the governments of Canada, US, and Mexico may not nationalize company's from other signatories. So Canada could not randomly one day say that it had nationalized all Halliburton assets in Canada. Throughout various cases, this has come to mean that governments cannot take steps that would unreasonably harm the financial well being of a foreign firm.

Here is an example:

Methanex Corp. v. United States of America
Methanex Corporation, a Canadian marketer and distributor of methanol, submitted a claim in June 1999 alleging that the U.S. is in breach of its obligations under Chapter Eleven through California's enactment of a ban on the use or sale in California of the gasoline additive MTBE. Methanol is an ingredient used to manufacture MTBE.

(Incidentally if you go here, you'll see that Canada has been a respondent in fewer Chapter 11 cases than either US or Mexico. This chapter has been great for Canadian business even if people at TC refuse to help our business file them.)

Chapter 11 is the only one of its kind in international law. It allows private individuals or companies to sue foreign governments for violation of their private rights. Here is a good paper on its implications.

Given how case law has been developed, it is reasonable to assume that if the gov't of Canada did not allow American HMO's to participate in the Canadian market it coudl get sued. Of course, this does not mean that American companies could buy up all Canadian hospitals or insurance companies. (There is an exception that allows the gov't to review and approve all acquisitions under the Investment Canada Act.)

Now here is the kicker: NOTHING has changed due to recent Supreme Court decision. In fact, as far as NAFTA is concerned, things have been pretty much the same since Alberta passed Bill 11 - that allowed for private healthcare facilities. If there was an evil US plan to sue Canada under Chapter 11, it would have already begun with a test of Bill 11.

If you have any specific questions email me or leave a comment, otherwise I will consider this the end of my posts on world trade and healthcare. (Because I can’t say for sure this is how things will go and these short posts do not do any justice to how complicated the process would.)

Healthcare and World Trade

[long post alert: this posts includes info on WTO, NAFTA post will be later today]

A few have asked whether the government of Canada can realistically allow private participation in healthcare while barring American firms, including HMO’s, from entering Canada.

This is a very interesting question and one that socialists like Maude Barlow have raised in the past. Throughout this post I will talk about the general, international trade issues that come up and not about the merits or flaws of foreign competition.

The important thing to note is that this is really not exclusively a NAFTA issue. Although it may be fought in a NAFTA court, if NAFTA did not exist Canada would still have to deal with the WTO if it wanted to exclude American firms from competing in Canada. So I will deal with WTO first.

The basic principles of the World Trade Organization are two ideas called “most favoured nation” and “national treatment.” MFN basically says that you cannot treat different countries differently. In other words, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members. So if a province in Canada were to allow a company from UK bid on a hospital or allow a Chinese investor to invest in a private insurance company, it could not stop a US firm. So what, you might say, we can easily just ban all foreign firms from competing in anything that has anything to do with healthcare. True, I suppose. You’d have to stop a few P3 contracts. That is possible – difficult, but possible.

However, there is no easy way around National treatment- which by the way is one of the only ideas included in all three of WTO’s main agreements, (GATT:3, GATS: 17, TRIPS:3). It says, in different ways, once a good or a service has entered your country there is nothing, absolutely nothing, you can do that would treat it differently from a domestic good. National treatment applies after a product or a service has entered the market, so theoretically Canada could build a tariff wall so huge that would make it highly unprofitable for an American firm to do business in Canada. The question is, are Canadian politicians willing to put a blatant tariff on a service when they know very well that the future of our country’s economic well being depends on there being free trade in services? Even if they are willing to put up a tariff wall on this, are they willing to shut out the entire world, per MFN, from this segment? I’d submit that no government would be willing to do so.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t completely legal ways for the government of Canada to slow down American firms to protect an “infant industry.” (I really don’t want to get into debates about infant industries and strategic trade, if you are really interested read Marc Busch’s book on this.) Canada could put up NTB’s under the SPS agreement. (Not Trade Barriers, Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement.) Canada could say that no medical provider is allowed to practice in Canada until all the company’s senior management has taken so and so course. (This is basically what the BAR association does to American lawyers.) Of course if the requirement is too unreasonable, then the US could challenge it and win a case. But since a WTO case of such magnitude would take at least 12-18 months to work its way through the system, the government of Canada could buy an infant industry at least 3-4 years by putting up various restrictions.

The question you have to ask yourself is: are you willing to play games with the world trade system, on which 50% of Canada’s GDP is directly dependent, in order to protect healthcare?

If the answer to that question is yes, then here is a simple solution to all of the problems: stop complying. The easiest way to stop American firms from coming into Canada is straight non-compliance. Have the Prime Minister stand up in Brussels or DC and say: “Folks, it is my government’s intention to legislate in a way that is in direct contravention of our WTO obligations. You will find us at fault at a WTO tribunal and give us a few months to comply. We will take those few months and do nothing. Then you will take us back and fine us by nullifying some of our rights. We will ignore you since we know no-country actually likes to take actions even when they are allowed to through nullification.”

This is what I would call a European Union on Hormone Beef defense. (Canada was the country complaining in that case, we won and Europe refuses to comply.)

So Maude, don’t worry, despite all the protests, in the very end, WTO has no teeth and depends on country leader’s being honourable people. Paul Martin and crew, by defying century old traditions in house, have shown that they are not honourable in any way, shape, or form. They could just as easily defy the decades old WTO code.

[this post is really, really incomplete, but I have lots of work to do this morning so I am going to get back to work. There will be updates on the following issues: 1) NAFTA and Chapter 11 – a little preview: unlike the WTO NAFTA has some teeth, not a lot but some 2) realities of world trade and diplomacy – preview: it’s likely that hell will freeze over before anyone brings a healthcare case in front of either the WTO or NAFTA - unless we really piss of the Americans by, oh I don’t know, mocking them internationally and calling them liars and a danger to the world]

It's Morality, Stupid

Quite a bit has been written on religion's place in politics. I don't intend to re-write it all.

For too long, Conservatives have been afraid to stand up and wear their religions as badges of honour. Poll after poll shows that great majority of Canadians self-identify with a religion. Why is it, if that the majority of Canadians are okay with religion, that we are hiding our religious values?

After all, the basic values that guide most people through their lives are partly developed in a church of some sort.

This is a point that Stephen Harper understands well.

"If we're to . . . clean up government, end corruption, restore some sense of ethics and morality into politics, then you have to have people who are concerned with these kinds of things," said Harper.

"If you continue to vote for people who say they have no ethics, you'll end up with an unethical government."

I was at a model parliament at Queen's park once when a Liberal "MPP" stood up and said something like this: "Religion is a cancer upon our society. Religious people are all bigots." It's not a verbatim quote, but it's fairly close. This is honestly what liberals believe. They believe that religion, or at least any religion that requires any discipline, is a cancer upon society.

Now, who do you think Canadians will find more extreme? People who believe that the core of what Canadians believe is a cancer or people who are proud of this core?

Stockwell Day was harmed each time he explained how he would shield his religion, or limit his religion, from affecting public policy. He should have been pointing out how his religion is the moral basis that keeps him from cheating and steeling from the tax payer. He should have talked about how he would not lie and how he would not promote stripper visas because of his religion. Religious people share many values with majority of Canadians, if we are ever to form a permanent conservative majority we ought to tune into these shared values.

I am not advocating handing over the keys of Parliament to the Vatican. All I'm saying is there are political benefits to be drawn from being religious. These are the benefits Stephen Harper is talking about.

Good on him.

Dark Secrets They Don't Want Infidles to know

Saddam Offers a glimpse into what Middle Eastern leaders are claiming is Islam. This from the GQ artcile:

Saddam told them he had hired his son Uday three prostitutes for the three nights before his wedding.

"He said the first night, this girl came and gave it to Uday pretty good," one soldier said. "So Saddam asked his son if he was ready for the next one. 'No,' Uday told Saddam. 'This one was enough.' Saddam thought this was hilarious."

and then this:

He would offer them advice on women, they said.

"He was like, 'You gotta find a good woman. Not too smart, not too dumb. Not too old, not too young. In the middle. One that can cook and clean. Then you thank her, and you go...' And Saddam smiled and made the gesture of bending a woman over and spanking her, as if to say: This is how you keep her in line," one soldier said.

Is it any wonder that countries in the Middle East have such huge problems with prostitution? In Iran, where over 50% of the population is under 25, there is a 40% unemployment rate and prostitution is turning out to be one of the most popular aspirations for young girls. In fact, I think Tehran, the capital of Iran, has more prostitutes per capita than any other city. (300,000 for a population of about 10 million) That's a prostitute for every 16 males in the city. Can you imagine what the "occupancy" rate must be to keep such a high number?

Forget about Quran's being flushed at Gitmo. The people of Middle East need to focus on their own backyards and bedrooms. They are becoming lazier, less productive, and more sex-obsessed each and every day. So much for the cradle of civilization.

The Dog that voted against Stockwell Day

Adam Daifallah has a post on PQ's decision to hold its leadership election by the phone.

This is idiotic. It has never worked. It will never work. The easier you make the act of voting the easier it becomes for corrupt people to hijack democracy. (Just think how hard it would be to sign up instant Tories if all those voting in nomination races were required to answer four questions about the CPC, and imagine how much easier it would be if all nomination meetings were held over the phone.)

In the 2000 Alliance leadership race, the one where Adam knows of a cat who voted, I know of a dog that did the same. It was this phone voting that allowed a certain campaign to sign up hundereds of dead people in Quebec.

It's hard enough to stop people from voting twice when they are physically available at a convention hall, why is it that some think it would be safe to do it over the internet or over the phone? As far as I'm concerned if you are a healthy individual who is too lazy to get yourself to a convention hall to vote, you don't deserve to vote. After all, the odds are that you'll be too lazy to go help your candidate in a general election even if they win the nomination.

Bill Clinton: All that is wrong with the world

I'm not joking.

Bill Clinton is the poster child for most of what is wrong with the world - or at least North America. Here is a guy who got to where he got by being a coward (draft dodging), a traitor (going to communist Russia to oppose US policy), and a morally bankrupt liar (Monica et al.) This guy's one identifying characteristic is his pure lust for power.

Watch his "come-back kid" speech in New Hampshire. You'll notice that during that speech, he is the happiest man you have ever seen.

Anyway, today I want to talk about Clinton's marital infidelity. Here is something that I would like to show to Senator Clinton and say "what do you think?"

I would not do this because I want to cause her discomfort, but I would do this to give her a chance to do what she should have done years ago. As someone in the public eye, she has the responsibility to show all the young men and women of America that cheating is NOT okay. She should call up a lawyer right now and throw her cheating husband out on the street. She should do this both as a service to herself and as a way to save innumerable marriages in the future.

Bill Clinton's public violation of the sanctity of marriage has lead to a questioning of this sanctity by numerous young people my age - people who idolized Clinton politically now realized that cheating, well, happens. More importantly, they are lead to believe that there are no consequences to cheating on your wife/husband. That is Bill Clinton’s legacy – the promotion of adultery.

If I were a political advisor to Hillary Clinton, I’d tell her to get a divorce for the sake of her sanity, her honour, and her political career. First of all, think of Chelsea Clinton – does Hillary really want her daughter to grow up and live with a cheating husband and think “well mom did, so I will too?” Second, no one wants to vote for a helpless victim – so stop being one. Stop victimizing yourself by staying with a philandering husband. More importantly, there are still millions of people, like me, who believe in marriage and believe that Bill Clinton is the worst thing to happen to the institution of marriage since no-fault divorce. Hillary would go a long way in convincing them that she shares their values by ending this sham of a marriage.

Hillary, start the new women’s rights movement.

It has a catchy slogan:
“This me - saying no.
Your cheating ass has got to go”

Or something like that.

UPDATE: Apparently Saddam Hussein likes Clinton. More reason to dislike them both.