WAIT- I got it wrong

It wasn't the embargo...

• An Anti-Moscow sovreignty uprising in Kosovo
• An election in Pakistan tilting the country to the moderate middle
• The resignation of the longest standing Tyrant in the world after Queen Elizabeth

Someone has upped the CIA's budget!!!

Closing trade and Erecting an Embargo CAN work

It only took a few years...

Cuba Libre, anyone?

Bush, of course, will take full credit it for it. More evidence that patience and persistence are required to fully bolster international relations.

Oh, Toronto...

I couldn't have said it better myself.

The Tripoli Senate

Peter Van Loan thinks that threatening an election is going to make a big difference in how judicious the Senate is in reviewing his Government's crime bill.

Peter Van Loan lives in my building. I was in the elevator with him this morning and I asked him - point blank - what he thought it would accomplish. Peter knows who I am, but doensn't know, if you catch my drift. In the elevator, I am voter - nothing more, nothing less.

I asked him "What will dissolving the House of Commons do to make the Senate move faster? Senators aren't in the House of Commons so it seems like a bizarre threat to fight an election knowing that the same Senators will be there when you get back with or without a majority."

He smiled. Without even listening to his answer, we both knew that what he was doing was total bullshit - but the bottom line is that we are both right. I hate the crime bill - I think it sucks - I think that the changes make things that are already illegal illegaller. I also think that the Senate shouldn't exist. I think that it is being useful this week- but in a profoundly undemocratic way. The tories aren't actually going to use this plot to bring down their own Government - they are just turning up the volume on two core issues for their base: Senate Reform and Crime. It works out nicely for them.

But, imagine how swiftly the Senate would work if the House did come down and the government changed...we can all dream.

Take your Anti-Trust exemption

And shove it.

This post isn't about Super-Tuesday either. I am still figuring it out in my brain.

I watched, with horror, as Roger Clemens was "perp-walked" into the Capitol Building. The greatest pitcher of his generation, maybe of all time, is walking up the steps to be grilled by a bunch of hokey congressmen whose legacy will not even come close to rivalling Roger's. The people, it is said, they represent.

So I ask "why?" Why does congress have the ability to tar this great? Why did they get to take on McGuire and force him to plead the fifth? Why does Congress get a say?

Because of the Anti-trust exemption awarded to Major League Baseball in 1922 when the Surpeme Court ruled in the case of Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. MLB was then asking for the federal government to enforce its interstate commerce power to regulate the scheduling of interstate games. Now, MLB wants to keep the exemption so it can have a say over who moves what teams where. Many subsequent courts have pussied out in overuling the exemption - most often appealed on "agency" provisions where players are bound in contract to a team when they are drafted. To be fair, that particular provision is really unfair and isn't used by the Yankees anymore anyway because they have too much talent.

Phooey. The cost is too great - congressional oversight. How could that ever go poorly. Even the changes under the Curt Flood Act didn't go far enough.

In 2008, I don't think they need the anti-trust exemption to thwart competition. Lord knows that Stadiums don't build themselves, and I doubt that you and I could start up a rival league on the WB network. As a direct result of the monopoly- MLB built up a brand that can't be rivalled.

If I was an owner, I would hate the current rules. I believe the owners do not have a true ability to alienate their property and the players get screwed because they can't avail themselves of a myriad of rudimentary contract law provisions of agency, free or otherwise. Of course, no big name players care about that - only the poorest of the poor Minor leaguers who could develop into something if only they could get out from under the crushing thumb of their teams - who would rather watch them waste away then give them a major league shot on another team.

The big name players only care AFTER they have been dragged before Congress.

I would posit that MLB doesn't need the monopoly anymore. It should lapse kind of like a patent does.

In exchange, the leauge can be in charge of enforcing its own rules. Imagine that. The NFL does ok, the NBA does ok, and even, shock of shocks, the NHL does ok.

That and the monopoly doesn't apply to Toronto. Nothing like a collection of equals with an odd man out.

Dessert in the Desert

This post isn't about underwhelming Tuesday either.

Shaq is going to Phoenix. I love it.

I will still cheer for the lowly Heat. They won't make the playoffs, and now they have Wade, Marion and a lottery pick for next year.

This deal was a no brainer for the Heat (one which I predicted a few months ago, BTW) as they dump an aging veteran who wasn't going to extend his contract any further. If they were still in it- they would need him to win. They have pulled the 'chute on this season.

For the Suns, it is slightly tougher math. True- they have the best record in the West. True - they are a run-and-gun team. True - Shaq would need an oxygen pack just to keep up with them. True- they don't have the pieces to beat the Lakers or the Spurs in a seven game playoff series. Sometimes you have to take a car apart to make it run that much better.

Replace their third option shooter Marion - with a proven, but busted - centre who can dominate Yao, Duncan and anyone else at will, and post-up on demand. What they lose in speed, they gain in bulk/defence. Nash plus O'Neal equals - the best shooting guard passer and big man passer in the game. Stoudemire is going to score a trazillion points a game. With O'Neal in the post, their opponents will have NO CHOICE but to double him up, freeing up the best shooting team in the league for wide open shots.

I like this trade, but time will tell. Will they get to the Finals and Garnett/O'neal have the duel they deserve? I don't know, but watching Shaq take on Kobe in the Western conference finals is already too much fun to even think about.

The French Language in Quebec - Latineau?

This post is not about Super Tuesday.

Its about this. I am sorry that the story isn't in English.

I have never lived in Quebec. In fact, most of the time I spend in Quebec, I spend talking to an Arab grocer who sells booze after the LCBO and Beer Store close. As you can probably imagine, he doesn't care very much for the tone of the ongoing debate on "reasonable accomodation."

Nationalism, in any form, has always been scary to me. It is based on the accident of birth, and pride that is based in an ethnic culture carries additional warning that is well beyond national pride. You can care about your culture or community without being a nationalist.

But, the PQ, they are socialists, right? And they are nationalists.

And they want to see one language and less imigrants. Oy vey.

Back in the real world, we see another attempt by Liberals to use language as their nationalist flag. Remember, it was Bourassa who introduced the first french charter in 1974. It was the PQ who expanded it. As part of the code, it has been litgated on many grounds- the two most controversial sections being the language signs and education provisions. Now they actually want to enforce them.

Personally- I have many concerns regarding the ability of bureaucrats to implement a policy that is specifically geared at non-francophones in a way that is not discriminatory in its application. Moreover, I continue to fail the value in such a restrictive policy in a province that is, historically, one of the most liberal (small "L") in the world in terms of so many other aspects of society. I guess they are trying to make up for how restrictive the Charter is by letting you do whatever you want - as long as it is in French. As the first generation of Hyphenated Quebecois are getting married, they are going to start using anagrams for their last names.

I look at the law suspiciously- and strongly criticize any move to further restrict the use of "not French" in Quebec. It is transparently racist. By appealing to the lower common denominator, the PLQ is pandering to the base that supports the PQ on the grounds of emotive nationhood. After almost 35 years, its effectiveness is questionable, except to drive down investment and create English flight to other parts of the country.