Casey at the bat: three swings and he's out
Harper Conservatives can't say they weren't warned in vote against Budget by well-liked Nova Scotia MP.
Bill Casey with Truro councillor Raymond Tynes and Harper in happier daysBy Stephen Kimber
Federal Tories couldn't have been surprised when Bill Casey stood in the House of Commons on principle — and against his party — in last week's budget vote.
In truth, the veteran Cumberland-Colchester- Musquodoboit Valley MP has been out of step with Stephen Harper (and in touch with his own constituents) from the day the former Reformer was sworn in as prime minister.
That grand occasion also marked the first day Casey publicly questioned the PM's wisdom — for welcoming yesterday's Liberal, David Emerson, into his cabinet.
In February, Casey was deep in the doo-doo again after he criticized Harper for currying favour with Quebec voters by handing out aerospace contracts to firms in that province when companies in his own riding didn't get a whiff of the lucrative work.
All of this, of course, has always played much better in Casey's home riding — where he's been re-elected in four straight elections — than it does inside the Conservative caucus in Ottawa where leader loyalty is the sine qua non of promotion. Which is why he isn't in the caucus anymore.
"Our association to a person is supporting Bill," local riding president Scott Armstrong told the Amherst Daily News.
"He's been a wonderful MP for our riding and we support him."
Others in the riding agree — at least if you believe reader responses on the Amherst paper's website.
"The Tories don't realize what they have lost," wrote Shawna Richardson.
"I know that (I and) a lot of others voted for Bill, and not necessarily the party... Whatever party is in power makes no difference to me. But who represents my interests in Ottawa is very important and, therefore, as long as he is in politics... Bill will always have my vote."
"Mr Casey remembers where he comes from and, more importantly, who put him in Ottawa," explained Jennifer Boyce from Pictou. "It wasn't Stephen Harper."
Although he insists he's made no decisions about his long-term political future, Casey mused last week that "even I was surprised that I didn't mind sitting as an independent."
All of which raises an interesting question. How will Harper ever win his elusive majority if he keeps alienating his own supporters?
Answer: He won't.
Sources:
Stephen Kimber, Casey at the bat: three swings and out, The Daily News, June 10, 2007
Casey's budget vote a surprise, MacKay says, CBC News, June 7, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Harper's Trigger Happy Gun Panel
Harper's Gun Advisors are Trigger Happy Wackos
OTTAWA – The Conservative government's firearms advisory committee, appointed and operating in virtual secrecy, is made up almost entirely of pro-gun advocates opposed to the firearms registry.
Its dozen members include a man who argued that more guns in the hands of students would have helped in the recent Virginia Tech massacre, in which 32 people were killed, and another shooting aficionado who described a weapon used in last September's Dawson College killings in Montreal as "fun."
The committee's pro-gun tilt lends to the perception that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is out of step with urban concerns on firearms violence – especially in Toronto. Jordan Manners, 15, was killed last week in a school shooting, days after philanthropist Glen Davis was gunned down.
Over the Easter weekend, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day quietly extended a long-gun amnesty program to allow those firearms owners yet more time to register their weapons – pleasing registry opponents but angering those fighting for tougher laws.
In background research obtained and confirmed by the Star, members of the Conservatives' committee have shown themselves to be vocal proponents of gun use.
"If even 1 per cent of the students and staff at Virginia Tech had been allowed to exercise their right to self defence, then this tragedy would have been stopped in its very beginning and dozens of lives would have been saved," Dr. Mike Ackermann, a Nova Scotia physician, wrote in a letter to the Ottawa Sun in April. "There are never any mass killings at shooting ranges; only at schools and other so-called `gun-free zones.'"
Gary Mauser, a Simon Fraser University professor renowned for his work opposing gun laws, wrote an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun in February: "Firearm laws divert scarce resources from alternative approaches that might actually improve public safety."
The Public Safety Minister's office recruited the panel members but did not, as has been the practice in previous governments, issue any public announcement about the appointments. Nor does it seem to have included any panel members with expertise on suicide or sociological factors behind gun crime, as previous governments have attempted to do.
The only apparent acknowledgment of the committee's membership was found in a letter by MP Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton Melville) to constituents in which he pointed to the makeup of the panel as evidence of the Tories' intent to be more gun friendly.
"In October, the minister's new firearms advisory committee met in Ottawa for the first time. The difference between the Liberal government and the Conservative government is obvious by the people that make up the committee," Breitkreuz wrote in the letter dated Dec. 15, 2006. He named Ackermann, Mauser and 10 other members:
Tony Bernardo, Canadian Institute of Legislative Action.
Linda Thom, Olympic gold medallist in pistol shooting.
Alain Cossette, Quebec Wildlife Federation.
Greg Farrant, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.
Linda Baggaley, firearms expert and dealer from Alberta.
Stephen Torino, Quebec firearms expert and dealer.
Louis D'amour, New Brunswick firearms expert.
Gerry Gamble, Sporting Clubs of Niagara.
Robert Head, former RCMP assistant commissioner.
John Gayder, Niagara police.
Murray Grismer, Saskatoon police.
Mauser, reached by the Star, said panel members do have disagreements, though he did not want to elaborate on their discussions or advice they've given Day after their meetings, which he said occur every few months. Panel members are not paid but travel expenses are covered.
"I can't tell you what that advice is ... and I certainly can't tell you whether they followed it or not," Mauser said in a phone interview.
At least some committee members have ties to the National Rifle Association in the U.S.
NRA president Sharon Froman spoke at an annual gathering of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association last November, for instance, noting her admiration for Torino.
Torino was also on the committee when Liberals were in power. At that time though, as when the panel was set up by former prime minister Kim Campbell, there was more of a balance between pro-gun and anti-gun advocates.
"Steve was one of the beacons of hope in a room full of enemies determined to eradicate your gun rights," Froman told the conference as she described working with Torino at a United Nations meeting on limiting the spread of firearms.
Froman praised Bernardo in that same speech, recalling work they have done together on the international stage. Bernardo appeared in a Canadian Press story, discussing the type of weapon used by Kimveer Gill in the Dawson College shooting.
"It's very accurate. The firearm is just one of those firearms that's just a lot of fun to spend a day at the range with."
Inquiries to Breitkreuz and the Public Safety department were referred to Day's office, but Day was travelling and his officials responded with only general information.
Harper threatens Atlantic Provinces
Stephen Harper Breaks Contract with Atlantic Canada
Provinces Prepare to take it to Court.
June 12th 2007.
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper is threatening to take the Atlantic Provinces to court to rebut critics who say he is breaking his word and shortchanging Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
"We don't break contracts; we respect contracts," Harper told the Commons yesterday in reply to sharp criticism from Conservative Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald on the heels of months of protest from Newfoundland's Danny Williams, and the ouster last week of Tory MP Bill Casey.
Another Nova Scotia Conservative MP, Gerald Keddy, planned to meet with the Prime Minister last night to discuss his concerns about the dispute.
"We're between a rock and a hard place," said Keddy, who hinted that his support for the government's March 19 budget was wavering.
"I'm not going to make any decisions until I get a chance to talk to the Prime Minister," he told The Canadian Press.
Harper disputes the charge that his government breached the Atlantic Accords, and broke an election promise to let those provinces keep 100 per cent of their offshore oil and gas revenues without suffering hits to their federal-provincial equalization payments.
Yesterday, a combative Harper first dared the provinces to take him to court if they are serious.
"That's a serious allegation: the federal government's breaking the law. We're not breaking the law. And if Nova Scotia believes that they would take the appropriate action."
Harper added he was still open to talks to resolve the dispute as voters expect leaders to do, "like adults." But Harper said there would be no more "side deals" with provinces.
Then, Harper – who has long held that courts should not intervene in political decisions – said if the provinces don't do so, he would put the whole question of whether a contract was broken to some kind of judicial review.
"I don't think we can let this stand. At some point, we'll consult the courts to see if we've respected the contract," said Harper.
It prompted his political opponents to denounce Harper's descent into a war of words with the provinces, less than three months after federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty declared that "bickering between provincial and federal governments is over."
"When the finance minister announced the end of federal-provincial bickering, he did not say that meant `We will sue you if you disagree with us,'" Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said in the Commons.
It also prompted a warning from MacDonald, Nova Scotia's Conservative premier, that Harper's threat of court action could backfire on the federal Conservatives because emotions are running high in his province.
"The most important court is the court of public opinion, and I can tell you that the court of public opinion in Nova Scotia is that the federal government has broken a deal," MacDonald said after a private luncheon speech to Bay St. executives.
"There will be a political price to pay in Nova Scotia unless they honour the agreement," he predicted yesterday.
"We may be a small province in Nova Scotia, but we will not be bullied by the federal government."
On Sunday, MacDonald called on Nova Scotia MPs and senators to follow the lead of MP Bill Casey – ousted from the Conservative caucus for voting against the budget over his belief it broke the party's promise on the Atlantic Accords.
Casey yesterday echoed MacDonald's warning about the party's Nova Scotia prospects, saying voters there have shut out political parties in past elections to show their displeasure.
Moreover, Casey disputed Harper's contention that there are no "side deals" to be discussed, saying he was involved in talks to achieve just that, up until last week's vote and his eviction from caucus.
MacDonald said his call on federal Conservatives to vote against the budget was not an easy one. "As a Conservative premier myself, this is a major stand."
It came after closed-door talks between federal and provincial officials collapsed last week, and following publication Saturday of a public letter by Flaherty in a Halifax newspaper declaring there would be no side deals, and that it was an "urban myth" that Ottawa was not respecting the Atlantic Accords.
That letter was the straw that "broke the camel's back," said MacDonald.
He said all Canadians have a stake in how this matter is handled because the federal government's reputation for keeping its word is at issue.
"It's in the best interest of the country because if any of my colleagues from any province or territory is going to be signing agreements we need to know they're going to be kept.
"This goes to the very principle of Confederation."
Nova Scotians are angry, and talking about it "on the streets, in the stores, in their workplaces and at the supper table," said MacDonald.
"The offshore agreement was an agreement which Nova Scotians saw as an opportunity to move forward, to be a `have' province, to contribute to our country.
"And now that is being taken away," the premier said.
MacDonald said he last spoke with Harper on Sunday night, but would not reveal details of their conversation.
Harper insists his 2007 budget gives the provinces a clear choice between keeping their non-renewable resource revenues under the 2005 accords and the old equalization formula, or choosing a new equalization formula, which he said gives Nova Scotia an extra $95 million this year alone.
But Dion said Harper is "trapped" because he made a promise he that could not keep – to not claw back the Atlantic provinces' offshore energy revenues when calculating their federal-provincial wealth-sharing transfer payment under a newly-revised equalization program.
Provinces Prepare to take it to Court.
June 12th 2007.
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper is threatening to take the Atlantic Provinces to court to rebut critics who say he is breaking his word and shortchanging Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
"We don't break contracts; we respect contracts," Harper told the Commons yesterday in reply to sharp criticism from Conservative Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald on the heels of months of protest from Newfoundland's Danny Williams, and the ouster last week of Tory MP Bill Casey.
Another Nova Scotia Conservative MP, Gerald Keddy, planned to meet with the Prime Minister last night to discuss his concerns about the dispute.
"We're between a rock and a hard place," said Keddy, who hinted that his support for the government's March 19 budget was wavering.
"I'm not going to make any decisions until I get a chance to talk to the Prime Minister," he told The Canadian Press.
Harper disputes the charge that his government breached the Atlantic Accords, and broke an election promise to let those provinces keep 100 per cent of their offshore oil and gas revenues without suffering hits to their federal-provincial equalization payments.
Yesterday, a combative Harper first dared the provinces to take him to court if they are serious.
"That's a serious allegation: the federal government's breaking the law. We're not breaking the law. And if Nova Scotia believes that they would take the appropriate action."
Harper added he was still open to talks to resolve the dispute as voters expect leaders to do, "like adults." But Harper said there would be no more "side deals" with provinces.
Then, Harper – who has long held that courts should not intervene in political decisions – said if the provinces don't do so, he would put the whole question of whether a contract was broken to some kind of judicial review.
"I don't think we can let this stand. At some point, we'll consult the courts to see if we've respected the contract," said Harper.
It prompted his political opponents to denounce Harper's descent into a war of words with the provinces, less than three months after federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty declared that "bickering between provincial and federal governments is over."
"When the finance minister announced the end of federal-provincial bickering, he did not say that meant `We will sue you if you disagree with us,'" Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said in the Commons.
It also prompted a warning from MacDonald, Nova Scotia's Conservative premier, that Harper's threat of court action could backfire on the federal Conservatives because emotions are running high in his province.
"The most important court is the court of public opinion, and I can tell you that the court of public opinion in Nova Scotia is that the federal government has broken a deal," MacDonald said after a private luncheon speech to Bay St. executives.
"There will be a political price to pay in Nova Scotia unless they honour the agreement," he predicted yesterday.
"We may be a small province in Nova Scotia, but we will not be bullied by the federal government."
On Sunday, MacDonald called on Nova Scotia MPs and senators to follow the lead of MP Bill Casey – ousted from the Conservative caucus for voting against the budget over his belief it broke the party's promise on the Atlantic Accords.
Casey yesterday echoed MacDonald's warning about the party's Nova Scotia prospects, saying voters there have shut out political parties in past elections to show their displeasure.
Moreover, Casey disputed Harper's contention that there are no "side deals" to be discussed, saying he was involved in talks to achieve just that, up until last week's vote and his eviction from caucus.
MacDonald said his call on federal Conservatives to vote against the budget was not an easy one. "As a Conservative premier myself, this is a major stand."
It came after closed-door talks between federal and provincial officials collapsed last week, and following publication Saturday of a public letter by Flaherty in a Halifax newspaper declaring there would be no side deals, and that it was an "urban myth" that Ottawa was not respecting the Atlantic Accords.
That letter was the straw that "broke the camel's back," said MacDonald.
He said all Canadians have a stake in how this matter is handled because the federal government's reputation for keeping its word is at issue.
"It's in the best interest of the country because if any of my colleagues from any province or territory is going to be signing agreements we need to know they're going to be kept.
"This goes to the very principle of Confederation."
Nova Scotians are angry, and talking about it "on the streets, in the stores, in their workplaces and at the supper table," said MacDonald.
"The offshore agreement was an agreement which Nova Scotians saw as an opportunity to move forward, to be a `have' province, to contribute to our country.
"And now that is being taken away," the premier said.
MacDonald said he last spoke with Harper on Sunday night, but would not reveal details of their conversation.
Harper insists his 2007 budget gives the provinces a clear choice between keeping their non-renewable resource revenues under the 2005 accords and the old equalization formula, or choosing a new equalization formula, which he said gives Nova Scotia an extra $95 million this year alone.
But Dion said Harper is "trapped" because he made a promise he that could not keep – to not claw back the Atlantic provinces' offshore energy revenues when calculating their federal-provincial wealth-sharing transfer payment under a newly-revised equalization program.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Stephen Harper = Normal Guy
Stephen Harper is actually a pretty normal Canadian guy.
Like most normal guys Harper is: Christian, homophobic, stuck in his ways, stubborn, has 2 children and is an avid hockey fan. He also collects records of AC/DC and the Beatles.
If anything Harper is... quite boring. And very nerdish. He worked as a computer programmer during his 20s for an oil and gas company and later studied a masters degree in economics.
So he knows his numbers. He's a bean counter and he still maintains his close ties to the oil and gas industries.
He didn't even really want to be Prime Minister of Canada. He preferred to be the puppet-master telling old Preston Manning what to say and do and wrote speeches and ideologies for the Reform Party in his early days in politics.
A strong economy needs 3 things: Safety/Stability, cheap and ample supply of food for the masses, and affordable transportation for transferring goods/foods and people to and fro.
Oil and gasoline does play a very important part in Canada's prosperity. As a cheap commodity (thanks to subsidies it costs less to buy a litre of gasoline than it does for a litre of water). It allows us to transport food at cheap costs and bring cheap food quickly and easily to the masses.
It also allows us to transport other trade goods such as automotives, fashion, furniture and the like. Keeping the prices low = less cost for the consumer and more profit for the seller.
So logically one would think that using hybrid cars to keep costs down seems like a logical conclusion. Assuming of course that the car in question is affordable, has very good gas mileage and only marginally more expensive than a regular car.
For example if you were driving a 450 horsepower Lexus GS Hybrid and paid $77,000 for a new one you're not really saving any money. Its got a tonne of horsepower and torque that a lambo from the 1980s would be jealous of.
On the other hand you could also buy a 187 horsepower Toyota Camry for $31,000, still get tonnes of umph for your pleasure and the same fuel efficiency as a tiny Yaris.
As a typical boring nerd Stephen Harper probably doesn't know a lot about cars. He may know a fair bit about oil, gasoline and economics... but methinks he doesn't understand cars very well.
I lean towards Jaguars, Aston Martins and Mustangs myself. I've long had a dream of owning a gas guzzling 1970s powerhouse of a car... and sticking a hydrogen fuel cell engine in it to prove a point.
My father has a 1973 Plymouth Duster in green (he didn't like purple or orange so he went with puke green) that has been rotting in his shed since 1985. The car hasn't run in over 20 years. Fortunately he filled the engine with diesel to preserve it so it doesn't rust. It just needs to be cleaned out, replace anything that has been ruined, a lot of bodywork and a new paint job... that photo on the right is not the same car, but it is what it would have looked like when it was brand new.
For me however I'd be very tempted to just toss the engine out. Sell it for scrap. Fix the car up, stick a hydrogen fuel cell engine inside it, paint it cherry red or glossy black... and then take a vacation across Canada with it.
My reasoning? Thanks to the previous Liberal government there is a growing network across Canada of hydrogen fuel cell technology and ways to refuel a car that runs on that technology. Basically the idea is that people will be able to refill their cars with fuel anywhere they can find electricity.
Because all that is needed to collect and store hydrogen is electricity and water.
So the only real trick to this is how much will it cost to refill the car using hydrogen gathered using electricity, and how much will the electricity itself cost? And where is that electricity coming from? Coal plants?
Coal-burning electrical plants are the cause of roughly one quarter of Canada's greenhouse gases. More coal plants would hardly be good for the environment.
An important point is that coal isn't cheap. It cost the Ontario government 9 cents per kWh to make coal power, but they only sell it for 6 cents/kWh. Ontario taxpayers pay for the other 3 cents. Other sources of power are comparatively cheaper.
My hope is that someday I will be able to drive my "gas guzzling" car from the 1970s across Canada thanks to a network of cheap/environmentally friendly electricity.
Which I admit makes it sound like I'm some kind of freaking hippie. But I'm not. Like Stephen Harper I also like hockey, economics and I am a little homophobic (most guys are). But at least I'm not too stubborn and stuck in my ways to realize change is coming whether I like it or not and I am willing to embrace that change.
So when I say I hate Stephen Harper the truth is I don't "hate hate" the guy. I just don't like how stubborn he is and I don't agree with a lot of his policies. Especially his more wacko Christian ideas like bringing prayer back to public schools.
In short... I miss Brian Mulroney and the old Progressive Conservative party. At least then we'd have a government which was progressive with the environment instead of trying to ignore it.
I'd vote for Mulroney again given the chance.
Like most normal guys Harper is: Christian, homophobic, stuck in his ways, stubborn, has 2 children and is an avid hockey fan. He also collects records of AC/DC and the Beatles.
If anything Harper is... quite boring. And very nerdish. He worked as a computer programmer during his 20s for an oil and gas company and later studied a masters degree in economics.
So he knows his numbers. He's a bean counter and he still maintains his close ties to the oil and gas industries.
He didn't even really want to be Prime Minister of Canada. He preferred to be the puppet-master telling old Preston Manning what to say and do and wrote speeches and ideologies for the Reform Party in his early days in politics.
A strong economy needs 3 things: Safety/Stability, cheap and ample supply of food for the masses, and affordable transportation for transferring goods/foods and people to and fro.
Oil and gasoline does play a very important part in Canada's prosperity. As a cheap commodity (thanks to subsidies it costs less to buy a litre of gasoline than it does for a litre of water). It allows us to transport food at cheap costs and bring cheap food quickly and easily to the masses.
It also allows us to transport other trade goods such as automotives, fashion, furniture and the like. Keeping the prices low = less cost for the consumer and more profit for the seller.
So logically one would think that using hybrid cars to keep costs down seems like a logical conclusion. Assuming of course that the car in question is affordable, has very good gas mileage and only marginally more expensive than a regular car.
For example if you were driving a 450 horsepower Lexus GS Hybrid and paid $77,000 for a new one you're not really saving any money. Its got a tonne of horsepower and torque that a lambo from the 1980s would be jealous of.
On the other hand you could also buy a 187 horsepower Toyota Camry for $31,000, still get tonnes of umph for your pleasure and the same fuel efficiency as a tiny Yaris.
As a typical boring nerd Stephen Harper probably doesn't know a lot about cars. He may know a fair bit about oil, gasoline and economics... but methinks he doesn't understand cars very well.
I lean towards Jaguars, Aston Martins and Mustangs myself. I've long had a dream of owning a gas guzzling 1970s powerhouse of a car... and sticking a hydrogen fuel cell engine in it to prove a point.
My father has a 1973 Plymouth Duster in green (he didn't like purple or orange so he went with puke green) that has been rotting in his shed since 1985. The car hasn't run in over 20 years. Fortunately he filled the engine with diesel to preserve it so it doesn't rust. It just needs to be cleaned out, replace anything that has been ruined, a lot of bodywork and a new paint job... that photo on the right is not the same car, but it is what it would have looked like when it was brand new.
For me however I'd be very tempted to just toss the engine out. Sell it for scrap. Fix the car up, stick a hydrogen fuel cell engine inside it, paint it cherry red or glossy black... and then take a vacation across Canada with it.
My reasoning? Thanks to the previous Liberal government there is a growing network across Canada of hydrogen fuel cell technology and ways to refuel a car that runs on that technology. Basically the idea is that people will be able to refill their cars with fuel anywhere they can find electricity.
Because all that is needed to collect and store hydrogen is electricity and water.
So the only real trick to this is how much will it cost to refill the car using hydrogen gathered using electricity, and how much will the electricity itself cost? And where is that electricity coming from? Coal plants?
Coal-burning electrical plants are the cause of roughly one quarter of Canada's greenhouse gases. More coal plants would hardly be good for the environment.
An important point is that coal isn't cheap. It cost the Ontario government 9 cents per kWh to make coal power, but they only sell it for 6 cents/kWh. Ontario taxpayers pay for the other 3 cents. Other sources of power are comparatively cheaper.
My hope is that someday I will be able to drive my "gas guzzling" car from the 1970s across Canada thanks to a network of cheap/environmentally friendly electricity.
Which I admit makes it sound like I'm some kind of freaking hippie. But I'm not. Like Stephen Harper I also like hockey, economics and I am a little homophobic (most guys are). But at least I'm not too stubborn and stuck in my ways to realize change is coming whether I like it or not and I am willing to embrace that change.
So when I say I hate Stephen Harper the truth is I don't "hate hate" the guy. I just don't like how stubborn he is and I don't agree with a lot of his policies. Especially his more wacko Christian ideas like bringing prayer back to public schools.
In short... I miss Brian Mulroney and the old Progressive Conservative party. At least then we'd have a government which was progressive with the environment instead of trying to ignore it.
I'd vote for Mulroney again given the chance.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Parties Threaten to oust Harper if he doesn't ratify Kyoto
Coalition threatens election over Kyoto
June 6th 2007.
MONTREAL - With Prime Minister Stephen Harper trying to persuade European politicians he has the right plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, four federal parties and Quebec environmentalists teamed up to call for his environment minister's head and threaten an election.
"It's not impossible that we will get to that ( an election on Kyoto)," Quebec Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez said in reference to Conservative stalling tactics in the Senate to block Bill C-288. A private member's bill piloted by Rodriguez, the bill is designed to ensure Canada honours its Kyoto protocol commitments despite the minority Conservative government's opposition to the accord.
Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard Bigras added that the critical moment, as far as he's concerned, will come if the government fails to take action in the 60 days after the adoption of Bill C-288.
"If it does not, it is clear parliamentarians will have to assume their responsibilities," Bigras said in a vague threat.
The two politicians made the comments at a Montreal news conference where they were joined by representatives of the New Democratic Party and Green Party in upping the pressure on the Harper government to end its filibuster on the bill.
They said the Conservatives are using their minority in the Senate to block final adoption of Bill-C-288. Also attending were members of a pro-Kyoto Quebec group and an industry representative from the Cascades paper giant, which has been reducing its emissions for years.
"He (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) is doing what he promised he would never do," said Rodriguez. "He is using his minority in the Senate to go against the will of the elected majority in the House of commons.
"We are here to send him a clear message. Respect the will of Quebecers. Respect the will of the majority of Canadians. Do it for your children and grandchildren."
In Ottawa, the Liberal majority in the Senate is threatening to sit through the summer in order to pass the bill.
At the Montreal meeting, Quebec candidate Thomas Mulcair said Harper's efforts to thwart Kyoto prove the Conservative government never had any intention of respecting its international obligations.
"Mr. Harper, all of us here today are giving you one clear message: stop being such an international embarrassment, start respecting our international obligations."
The four parties are also calling for federal environment minister John Baird's resignation in an open letter to be published in the Montreal media Wednesday.
June 6th 2007.
MONTREAL - With Prime Minister Stephen Harper trying to persuade European politicians he has the right plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, four federal parties and Quebec environmentalists teamed up to call for his environment minister's head and threaten an election.
"It's not impossible that we will get to that ( an election on Kyoto)," Quebec Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez said in reference to Conservative stalling tactics in the Senate to block Bill C-288. A private member's bill piloted by Rodriguez, the bill is designed to ensure Canada honours its Kyoto protocol commitments despite the minority Conservative government's opposition to the accord.
Bloc Quebecois MP Bernard Bigras added that the critical moment, as far as he's concerned, will come if the government fails to take action in the 60 days after the adoption of Bill C-288.
"If it does not, it is clear parliamentarians will have to assume their responsibilities," Bigras said in a vague threat.
The two politicians made the comments at a Montreal news conference where they were joined by representatives of the New Democratic Party and Green Party in upping the pressure on the Harper government to end its filibuster on the bill.
They said the Conservatives are using their minority in the Senate to block final adoption of Bill-C-288. Also attending were members of a pro-Kyoto Quebec group and an industry representative from the Cascades paper giant, which has been reducing its emissions for years.
"He (Prime Minister Stephen Harper) is doing what he promised he would never do," said Rodriguez. "He is using his minority in the Senate to go against the will of the elected majority in the House of commons.
"We are here to send him a clear message. Respect the will of Quebecers. Respect the will of the majority of Canadians. Do it for your children and grandchildren."
In Ottawa, the Liberal majority in the Senate is threatening to sit through the summer in order to pass the bill.
At the Montreal meeting, Quebec candidate Thomas Mulcair said Harper's efforts to thwart Kyoto prove the Conservative government never had any intention of respecting its international obligations.
"Mr. Harper, all of us here today are giving you one clear message: stop being such an international embarrassment, start respecting our international obligations."
The four parties are also calling for federal environment minister John Baird's resignation in an open letter to be published in the Montreal media Wednesday.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
The How's and Why's of getting called a Cunt
Most women never deserve to be called a cunt.
Most women are generally nice people and deserve to be treated with Respect.
But when you go out of your way to mean to other people there are specific instances when I think those particular women deserve to get the C-word as a response.
Here's two examples wherein I have personally called a woman a Cunt and I feel in those circumstances they deserved it.
I was in Toronto, at the Yonge/Bloor subway station carrying a box of breakables and I was walking parallel to the train rails (right on the yellow line for anyone familiar with the TTC subway) and this 30-something woman ahead of me was walking the opposite way carrying nothing but a purse.
Had she been pushing a baby carriage, or been pregnant, disabled, or carrying an even bigger box I would have stepped aside and let her pass. Nope. She was carrying nothing but a purse, so I kept walking in a straight line figuring she would have no trouble stepping to one side.
But she did have trouble with it. Apparently "I" got in her way. So when she did finally step to the side she took her time to say "Asshole."
I was immediately shocked that she could be so rude to a man carrying a box, but I was quick witted enough to very quickly say "Cunt."
And I feel she deserved it.
In the second example I was standing in the line at Tim Hortons (an instance all of us Canadians have done at some time). It was a long lineup and I was waiting for 20 minutes, possibly going to be late for work. Just as I near the counter the woman in front of me starts letting not one, but ALL of her co-workers (about 5 of them) to butt in front of her.
At which point I politely asked "What are you doing? What about the rest of us waiting here?"
"Well these are my co-workers and she's going to buy me a coffee."
"And what about the rest of us waiting here? Are your co-workers planning to buy us all coffees?"
She just laughed at me.
I was so furious I very nearly punched her. She got off lightly with being called a Cunt.
So yes, I think you will agree, there are women out there who are so rude that they deserve to be called a Cunt. If the particular instance warrants I fully agree with people using the word.
Bitch just wouldn't satisfy the full gravity of the situation.
Only Cunt is the proper word to express in certain situations.
Most women are generally nice people and deserve to be treated with Respect.
But when you go out of your way to mean to other people there are specific instances when I think those particular women deserve to get the C-word as a response.
Here's two examples wherein I have personally called a woman a Cunt and I feel in those circumstances they deserved it.
I was in Toronto, at the Yonge/Bloor subway station carrying a box of breakables and I was walking parallel to the train rails (right on the yellow line for anyone familiar with the TTC subway) and this 30-something woman ahead of me was walking the opposite way carrying nothing but a purse.
Had she been pushing a baby carriage, or been pregnant, disabled, or carrying an even bigger box I would have stepped aside and let her pass. Nope. She was carrying nothing but a purse, so I kept walking in a straight line figuring she would have no trouble stepping to one side.
But she did have trouble with it. Apparently "I" got in her way. So when she did finally step to the side she took her time to say "Asshole."
I was immediately shocked that she could be so rude to a man carrying a box, but I was quick witted enough to very quickly say "Cunt."
And I feel she deserved it.
In the second example I was standing in the line at Tim Hortons (an instance all of us Canadians have done at some time). It was a long lineup and I was waiting for 20 minutes, possibly going to be late for work. Just as I near the counter the woman in front of me starts letting not one, but ALL of her co-workers (about 5 of them) to butt in front of her.
At which point I politely asked "What are you doing? What about the rest of us waiting here?"
"Well these are my co-workers and she's going to buy me a coffee."
"And what about the rest of us waiting here? Are your co-workers planning to buy us all coffees?"
She just laughed at me.
I was so furious I very nearly punched her. She got off lightly with being called a Cunt.
So yes, I think you will agree, there are women out there who are so rude that they deserve to be called a Cunt. If the particular instance warrants I fully agree with people using the word.
Bitch just wouldn't satisfy the full gravity of the situation.
Only Cunt is the proper word to express in certain situations.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
The Wussification of Wikipedia
Wikipedia is for wussies and here's why:
There is, I've noticed, no universal online archive of old and recent newspaper/magazine clippings. Such an archive could contain clippings from the last 100 years easily and include sources like the New York Times, People Magazine, the Rolling Stone, the Toronto Star, etc. It would take a combined effort on the part of numerous magazine and newspaper companies to create such an archive.
But imagine the advertising revenues generated from what would be a popular site for both research and entertainment. We could look at movie reviews for films that came out 30 years ago and see what people back then thought of them.
Don't get me wrong, I think Wikipedia is still a great idea. Its just a flawed one to expect things to even out. C0ntroversial topics such as abortion, the war in Iraq, the JFK assassination, conspiracy theories about 9/11 are simply bound to rife with biases and flawed research. Its basically the fault of the general public for being largely uneducated.
Which is ironic because Wikipedia is meant to be an educational tool, but if its used for spreading misinformation how can it really be a viable tool? It will inherently be wrong or inaccurate 90% of the time.
Think for example of Wikiquote.org... any idiot can go on there and add quotes purporting to have been said by some famous celebrity or politician or whomever. No guarantee it is true or not. It makes me almost pity George W. Bush with all the times he's been misquoted or had quotes applied to him that he didn't actually say. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the bad attention but lets at least quote only things he actually really said.
Therefore there is two major flaws with wikipedia:
Furthermore, Wikipedia could be used to destroy a person's career or personal life. If for example the latest gossip on Mr and Mrs Famous gets published on Wikipedia and then repeated countlessly then that gossip has just become "fact" insofar as the public is concerned. The general public doesn't care whether or not its true, but once its out there that famous person or group of people could very have their career, marriage or personal life destroyed by simple gossip.
And in that respect Wikipedia is no better than the National Enquirer. We don't quote the National Enquirer on television (unless its for a documentary on aliens or some other conspiracy theory) so why would we do for Wikipedia?
Its because Wikipedia attempts to be authoritative, but that authority is not to be respected. Its dubious at best.
So please people. Think twice before quoting Wikipedia. If you're a teacher make it clear to students they should not use Wikipedia (or any other online encyclopedia) as their sole sources of research. Do not respect Wiki's authority for its no better than a news rag on the street.
- Controversial topics inherently end up going back and forth between conservative and liberal arguments. There is no middle ground but instead a constant polarization of information.
- It centralizes information on the internet, but that information is flawed, biased, incomplete, frequently open to abuse, has little or no authority to back-up many of the claims, has incomplete or improper references and is prone to misguided editorial-activism.
- Students and academics researching a topic should NOT use Wikipedia because its information is inherently flawed and unreliable. Plus its the LAZY way of researching a topic. If the modern grade school student uses wikipedia for ALL of their research they will end up with an essay or research paper that is inherently biased and incomplete. My advice for teachers? Make it clear to students that they must research other sources and that Wikipedia should be considered the last source to check.
- Google Scholar is a far better resource for genuine research purposes as it contains only those articles by professional writers and researchers. Yes, those writers/researchers may still be biased (we all are) but at the very least it will be well-researched and contain proper references, notes and bibliographies.
There is, I've noticed, no universal online archive of old and recent newspaper/magazine clippings. Such an archive could contain clippings from the last 100 years easily and include sources like the New York Times, People Magazine, the Rolling Stone, the Toronto Star, etc. It would take a combined effort on the part of numerous magazine and newspaper companies to create such an archive.
But imagine the advertising revenues generated from what would be a popular site for both research and entertainment. We could look at movie reviews for films that came out 30 years ago and see what people back then thought of them.
Don't get me wrong, I think Wikipedia is still a great idea. Its just a flawed one to expect things to even out. C0ntroversial topics such as abortion, the war in Iraq, the JFK assassination, conspiracy theories about 9/11 are simply bound to rife with biases and flawed research. Its basically the fault of the general public for being largely uneducated.
Which is ironic because Wikipedia is meant to be an educational tool, but if its used for spreading misinformation how can it really be a viable tool? It will inherently be wrong or inaccurate 90% of the time.
Think for example of Wikiquote.org... any idiot can go on there and add quotes purporting to have been said by some famous celebrity or politician or whomever. No guarantee it is true or not. It makes me almost pity George W. Bush with all the times he's been misquoted or had quotes applied to him that he didn't actually say. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the bad attention but lets at least quote only things he actually really said.
Therefore there is two major flaws with wikipedia:
- False information by people who don't do proper research and are there to support some bias;
- People quoting the false information on other websites, in news reports, research, etc.
Furthermore, Wikipedia could be used to destroy a person's career or personal life. If for example the latest gossip on Mr and Mrs Famous gets published on Wikipedia and then repeated countlessly then that gossip has just become "fact" insofar as the public is concerned. The general public doesn't care whether or not its true, but once its out there that famous person or group of people could very have their career, marriage or personal life destroyed by simple gossip.
And in that respect Wikipedia is no better than the National Enquirer. We don't quote the National Enquirer on television (unless its for a documentary on aliens or some other conspiracy theory) so why would we do for Wikipedia?
Its because Wikipedia attempts to be authoritative, but that authority is not to be respected. Its dubious at best.
So please people. Think twice before quoting Wikipedia. If you're a teacher make it clear to students they should not use Wikipedia (or any other online encyclopedia) as their sole sources of research. Do not respect Wiki's authority for its no better than a news rag on the street.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
How to deal with Quebec Separatists
My short answer?
You don't deal with them.
Instead we need to be making road blocks to make it extremely difficult, indeed impossible, for Quebec to separate from Canada.
I also think we should be cutting funding to federal political parties devoted to one province only. Separatist/local parties should be limited to the provincial legislatures only.
And its not just a matter of separatism.
For years now Canada has been suffering under an impasse between the Conservative and Liberal parties... consecutive minority governments are stagnating progress. If it weren't for the BQ Parti there would be no minority government currently in Canada.
If we can remove the BQ from power then we can finally have a government that is progressive again instead of maintaining the status quo.
You don't deal with them.
Instead we need to be making road blocks to make it extremely difficult, indeed impossible, for Quebec to separate from Canada.
I also think we should be cutting funding to federal political parties devoted to one province only. Separatist/local parties should be limited to the provincial legislatures only.
And its not just a matter of separatism.
For years now Canada has been suffering under an impasse between the Conservative and Liberal parties... consecutive minority governments are stagnating progress. If it weren't for the BQ Parti there would be no minority government currently in Canada.
If we can remove the BQ from power then we can finally have a government that is progressive again instead of maintaining the status quo.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Stephen Harper's "Do Nothing" approach to School Shootings
Stephen Harper is currently over in Afghanistan trying to boost support for Canada's troops in a country that is deciding whether or not to vote foreign forces out of the country.
Meanwhile in Canada a 14 year old boy
Meanwhile in Canada a 14 year old boy
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Harper's Green Policies just a Tax Grab
Stephen Harper's so-called green policies are essentially just a tax on carbon gases. It won't actually reduce greenhouse gases, but it will fatten tax coffers... by a relatively tiny amount.
So just how green is Harper's policies in the long run?
Answer: They aren't.
So its no wonder that other political parties and key environmentalists like David Suzuki and Al Gore are saying Harper's policies are inept and worthless.
So what is the solution?
Harper needs to put his money where his mouth is. He needs to step forward and commit funding to solar and wind renewable energy and ELIMINATE coal-powered electrical plants in Canada... and not by 2050. He needs to set a date which indicates action is being taken NOW, not 40 years from now. A logical and feasible date would be 2010.
Such an initiative would show environmentalists that Harper is taking environmental issues seriously.
Coal-powered electrical plants are responsible for 1/4 of Canada's carbon emissions. Eliminating coal plants would reduce Canada's emissions by approx. 25%.
In Ontario coal power costs more to the government to make than the amount they receive from the public. Currently Ontario electricity users pay 5.9 cents per kWH, but the cost of Ontario producing that energy using coal is actually 9 cents per kWH. Ontario taxpayers pay the difference and therefore coal-power is a constant drain on the tax coffers.
Switching to renewable energy (and placing more emphasis on nuclear energy) would be more cost-effective in the longrun and would create a robust industry in Canada to build and maintain renewable energy.
Canada has vast swaths of land that is unusable for farming but would be ideal for fields of solar panels and windmills.
Wind power in particular would be perfect for isolated northern communities which use gas-powered generators (which is extremely expensive) for their source of electricity. Approx. 6% of Canada's population lives in isolated communities.
So just how green is Harper's policies in the long run?
Answer: They aren't.
So its no wonder that other political parties and key environmentalists like David Suzuki and Al Gore are saying Harper's policies are inept and worthless.
So what is the solution?
Harper needs to put his money where his mouth is. He needs to step forward and commit funding to solar and wind renewable energy and ELIMINATE coal-powered electrical plants in Canada... and not by 2050. He needs to set a date which indicates action is being taken NOW, not 40 years from now. A logical and feasible date would be 2010.
Such an initiative would show environmentalists that Harper is taking environmental issues seriously.
Coal-powered electrical plants are responsible for 1/4 of Canada's carbon emissions. Eliminating coal plants would reduce Canada's emissions by approx. 25%.
In Ontario coal power costs more to the government to make than the amount they receive from the public. Currently Ontario electricity users pay 5.9 cents per kWH, but the cost of Ontario producing that energy using coal is actually 9 cents per kWH. Ontario taxpayers pay the difference and therefore coal-power is a constant drain on the tax coffers.
Switching to renewable energy (and placing more emphasis on nuclear energy) would be more cost-effective in the longrun and would create a robust industry in Canada to build and maintain renewable energy.
Canada has vast swaths of land that is unusable for farming but would be ideal for fields of solar panels and windmills.
Wind power in particular would be perfect for isolated northern communities which use gas-powered generators (which is extremely expensive) for their source of electricity. Approx. 6% of Canada's population lives in isolated communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)