A veritable cornucopia? David Welch takes interesting pictures.
A tail dragging romp through the swamps of the world
Saturday, April 30, 2011
SUN gives Jack a happy ending
Much is being made by the usual suspects of this clumsy smear job on Layton by the Toronto Sun.
Give that story a very careful, very close reading and realize it is built entirely on a single unnamed source, contains no evidence of anything and is built largely on innuendo.
Layton was never charged or even arrested and there is not even any direct accusation in the story that he did anything he should not have done. He openly admits that he went to get a massage at the apparently fully-licenced massage establishment. Something lots of people do every day. There is nothing sleazy about getting a massage. The only suggestion of anything untoward in the story is the unidentified, retired Toronto cop claiming that the establishment in question was thought to be a bawdy house by the Toronto police (who, of course, have never been wrong about anything or abused their powers for political ends, ever, especially back then).
And with the incident having occurred 16 years ago, it seems awfully convenient that the SUN would, wholly by coincidence, choose to run with the story two days before the election. Given what we know about the overlap in CPC strategists and SUN employees, what are the odds the Conservative Party of Canada will somehow be found to have been involved in the release of this information if someone wants to pursue it hard enough?
How's that for innuendo?
You know what the difference is?
What the SUN would like you to believe happened - that Proletarian Jack had his means of production seized - is a bit skeevy, but if his wife doesn't care, then why should we? It is ancient history and has no bearing on how he would govern.
What I have speculated about is recent, sinister, unethical, unprincipled, corrupt, possibly even criminal and certainly indicative of the kind of sleazy politics of character assassination the CPC has been engaging in for years. And it is more likely to be true.
I don't say any of this as any particular fan of Jack Layton. I'm fairly agnostic about the NDP in the general scheme of things. I like them better than the Conservatives, but I don't think they are going to singlehandedly usher in some kind of golden age where we all gather round singing The Internationale, nor do I think they will start nationalizing the banks and sending anyone who isn't a union member to re-education camps or anything like that.
But this kind of malicious smear campaign based on smirking innuendo should piss off anyone who values the truth, and I think that includes most Canadians. I apologize for the puns, but this kind of thing rubs Canadians the wrong way and the backlash might just be enough to turn a few close seats and give the NDP the hand it needs to give the country a happy ending.
crossposted from The Woodshed
Tweet
Give that story a very careful, very close reading and realize it is built entirely on a single unnamed source, contains no evidence of anything and is built largely on innuendo.
Layton was never charged or even arrested and there is not even any direct accusation in the story that he did anything he should not have done. He openly admits that he went to get a massage at the apparently fully-licenced massage establishment. Something lots of people do every day. There is nothing sleazy about getting a massage. The only suggestion of anything untoward in the story is the unidentified, retired Toronto cop claiming that the establishment in question was thought to be a bawdy house by the Toronto police (who, of course, have never been wrong about anything or abused their powers for political ends, ever, especially back then).
And with the incident having occurred 16 years ago, it seems awfully convenient that the SUN would, wholly by coincidence, choose to run with the story two days before the election. Given what we know about the overlap in CPC strategists and SUN employees, what are the odds the Conservative Party of Canada will somehow be found to have been involved in the release of this information if someone wants to pursue it hard enough?
How's that for innuendo?
You know what the difference is?
What the SUN would like you to believe happened - that Proletarian Jack had his means of production seized - is a bit skeevy, but if his wife doesn't care, then why should we? It is ancient history and has no bearing on how he would govern.
What I have speculated about is recent, sinister, unethical, unprincipled, corrupt, possibly even criminal and certainly indicative of the kind of sleazy politics of character assassination the CPC has been engaging in for years. And it is more likely to be true.
I don't say any of this as any particular fan of Jack Layton. I'm fairly agnostic about the NDP in the general scheme of things. I like them better than the Conservatives, but I don't think they are going to singlehandedly usher in some kind of golden age where we all gather round singing The Internationale, nor do I think they will start nationalizing the banks and sending anyone who isn't a union member to re-education camps or anything like that.
But this kind of malicious smear campaign based on smirking innuendo should piss off anyone who values the truth, and I think that includes most Canadians. I apologize for the puns, but this kind of thing rubs Canadians the wrong way and the backlash might just be enough to turn a few close seats and give the NDP the hand it needs to give the country a happy ending.
crossposted from The Woodshed
Tweet
A Benefit For Nancy: A Musician Facing Cancer
As anyone in Harper's Canada knows, we artists are a bunch of greedy spoiled leeches. What with our subsistence and poverty level incomes, utter lack of health and dental benefits, estrangement from any sort of job security and from concepts like retirement or pensions and the like. Yet, when there is a crisis or cause, the first persons turned to after the professional first responders are the artists. We give willingly of our time and talents to perform at benefits and to foster hope for healing and recovery. It is a privilege to do so and we do so gladly, from the coffee house to the concert hall, from the neighbourhood to the satellite broadcast we do what we can, at every level, because it is the right thing to do.
Today, I am asking you to give back some of that love and concern for one of our own. Nancy Borusiewich is very ill with ovarian cancer. She can not earn a living. She can not do what she trained so diligently for, she is prevented from creating and from sharing her love of music, her art. In celebration of her courage and to support her in this struggle, I'm asking you to lend her a hand and lend an ear. Tomorrow, Sunday May 1st at 2:30 in the afternoon, Nancy's students will be performing in concert at St. Matthew's Church, 54 Benton Street in Kitchener. If you can find your way there for some beautiful music, nothing could be more pleasing to Nancy and her family.
If you aren't able to attend, please have a thought for someone whose life has been dedicated to teaching and enhancing the lives of others through the beauty of her music, her gift. If you would like to contribute to help defray the onerous costs of medication and loss of income please consider donating what you can afford. A special account has been set up in Nancy's name at Canada Trust branch 3823 account #6313286.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Too Bad It's a Holiday and Hockey Playoff Season . . . .
or more people might have tuned in to Dawna Friesen's "One on One" interview with stevie this evening.
Basically, she ripped him a new one and he didn't look at all comfortable about it. Note how he says "The platform we're not running on is real" at the 4:15 mark.
Since Kevin Newman left "Global National" I had been withholding judgment on Ms. Friesen's creds, but she outdid her MSM colleagues on this one.
Good job . . . .
Sorry, I couldn't locate a non-commercial-included copy of the video.
Basically, she ripped him a new one and he didn't look at all comfortable about it. Note how he says "The platform we're not running on is real" at the 4:15 mark.Since Kevin Newman left "Global National" I had been withholding judgment on Ms. Friesen's creds, but she outdid her MSM colleagues on this one.
Good job . . . .
Sorry, I couldn't locate a non-commercial-included copy of the video.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Where Him At?
Will The Real Patrick Ross Please Stand Up
Anyone in the Edmonton area detecting methane off-gassing, please refer to the link above.
The King's speech
Let us be clear, Stephen Harper is the front runner in this election. The last thing a front runner wants is to lose control of the agenda or to get put on the defensive or to make a gaffe. So the smart thing for him to do has been to carefully control his public appearances to avoid any unfortunate incidents where he is forced to answer tough questions. Hence the Potemkin rallies with carefully vetted crowds. Hence the "only five questions a day" refusal to speak with reporters. But with the number of scandals continuing to mount - former aide Bruce Carson illegally lobbying to score some cash for his escort girlfriend, the return of the Helena Guerges circus, Bev Oda's Not-gate and now Dimitri Soudas being found out as an influence peddler - Stephen Harper's silence was finally starting to become an issue.
Canadians, the Conservative focus groups undoubted discovered, were starting to balk at the idea that we should give Stephen Harper a political blank cheque without him making some effort to explain why he deserves it.
So last night Stephen Harper finally deigned to speak to the Canadian people via an interview with Peter Mansbridge - an interview very carefully stagemanaged to try to make him look like a regular guy. He stands in a hockey rink in Newfoundland in his quilted Canada jacket, tieless, doing his best to look like a minor hockey coach instead of someone who has never really had a job outside of politics. (A hockey rink? My first thought was that the Globe and Mail's John Doyle is righter than he knows: Harper doesn't just keep his hair in the fridge, the CPC keeps him in cold storage at all times!)
The interview itself is telling - if you read between the lines and look at the way Harper answers or doesn't answer the questions. He goes out of his way to try to look like a reasonable guy who is beset by unreasonable opponents who are conspiring (coalition!) in diabolical ways to seize power for their own sinister ends (tax increases! Separatists in power! reopening the constitution!). To someone looking at Canadian politics for the first time, someone who has no idea of his track record, he might even pull it off.
But notice how many times Mansbridge, who is hardly a confrontational interviewer, calls bullshit on Slick Stevie. Notice how often Harper says something about his opponents and Mansbridge responds with "but that isn't what they've said."
Notice how Harper refuses, several times, to admit that any form of coalition is valid and that the party with the most seats doesn't necessarily get to govern if they can't win the confidence of the House of Commons. He keeps trying to argue that it is somehow a vague and nebulous notion that constitutional scholars disagree about and that "regular Canadians" would never accept.
It isn't. They don't. We have. Stephen Harper is just plain lying.
He tries to make it sound as if his government was brought down over the budget. It wasn't.
He tries to make it sound like he doesn't know why we are having an election, when he pretty much engineered it through his own brinksmanship on parliamentary privledge. He gave the opposition the choice of either letting him walk all over the notion of the government being accountable to the House of Commons or forcing an election while they trailed him by enough in the polls that he might get a majority.
And thanks to a divided oppostion, he very well might get his majority. Notice how he doesn't really say why he needs a majority other than to talk about "stability" and "unnecessary elections"-odd given that he has forced the last two. Notice also that he won't really say what he will do with a majority that he hasn't been able to do with a minority.
At the end of the interview Mansbridge asks: "Why should Canadians trust you with their vote on May 2?"
Harper replies, "I say look at our record, look at the direction the country is going. What other country would you want to be living in right now?"
I agree. Look at his record. Look at the direction the country is going. Ask yourself what other country Stephen Harper would rather be living in right now.
Me, I'd rather be living in a country where the government doesn't fire the head of the nuclear regulatory agency for doing her job. I'd rather be living in a country that is willing to investigate credible accusation of complicity with torture. I'd rather be living in a country where the prime minister doesn't suspend parliament every time he gets his tail caught in a crack. I'd rather be living in a country that spends a billion dollars on helping the poor instead of dispensing political pork and encouraging police thuggery as part of an international dog-and-pony show. I'd rather be living in a country where the government wasn't providing instruction manuals to its members on how to disrupt parliamentary committees.
I'd rather live in a country where decisions are based on solid census data and scientific fact, not one where we spend a fortune building new prisons for criminals who don't exist outside of the imagination of fearmongering politicians.
I'd like to live in the tolerant, economic and socially progressive Canada I grew up in, not in a country run by a control-freak micromanager hell-bent on turning it into a laboratory for Randites, frat boys, authoritarians, religious zealots and ignorant yahoos.
I'd like to think that is what most Canadians want and why Stephen Harper won't get his majority.
I'd like to think that, but then Willy Loman posted this video and reminded me why our country is in trouble to begin with.
Canadians, the Conservative focus groups undoubted discovered, were starting to balk at the idea that we should give Stephen Harper a political blank cheque without him making some effort to explain why he deserves it.
So last night Stephen Harper finally deigned to speak to the Canadian people via an interview with Peter Mansbridge - an interview very carefully stagemanaged to try to make him look like a regular guy. He stands in a hockey rink in Newfoundland in his quilted Canada jacket, tieless, doing his best to look like a minor hockey coach instead of someone who has never really had a job outside of politics. (A hockey rink? My first thought was that the Globe and Mail's John Doyle is righter than he knows: Harper doesn't just keep his hair in the fridge, the CPC keeps him in cold storage at all times!)
The interview itself is telling - if you read between the lines and look at the way Harper answers or doesn't answer the questions. He goes out of his way to try to look like a reasonable guy who is beset by unreasonable opponents who are conspiring (coalition!) in diabolical ways to seize power for their own sinister ends (tax increases! Separatists in power! reopening the constitution!). To someone looking at Canadian politics for the first time, someone who has no idea of his track record, he might even pull it off.
But notice how many times Mansbridge, who is hardly a confrontational interviewer, calls bullshit on Slick Stevie. Notice how often Harper says something about his opponents and Mansbridge responds with "but that isn't what they've said."
Notice how Harper refuses, several times, to admit that any form of coalition is valid and that the party with the most seats doesn't necessarily get to govern if they can't win the confidence of the House of Commons. He keeps trying to argue that it is somehow a vague and nebulous notion that constitutional scholars disagree about and that "regular Canadians" would never accept.
It isn't. They don't. We have. Stephen Harper is just plain lying.
He tries to make it sound as if his government was brought down over the budget. It wasn't.
He tries to make it sound like he doesn't know why we are having an election, when he pretty much engineered it through his own brinksmanship on parliamentary privledge. He gave the opposition the choice of either letting him walk all over the notion of the government being accountable to the House of Commons or forcing an election while they trailed him by enough in the polls that he might get a majority.
And thanks to a divided oppostion, he very well might get his majority. Notice how he doesn't really say why he needs a majority other than to talk about "stability" and "unnecessary elections"-odd given that he has forced the last two. Notice also that he won't really say what he will do with a majority that he hasn't been able to do with a minority.
At the end of the interview Mansbridge asks: "Why should Canadians trust you with their vote on May 2?"
Harper replies, "I say look at our record, look at the direction the country is going. What other country would you want to be living in right now?"
I agree. Look at his record. Look at the direction the country is going. Ask yourself what other country Stephen Harper would rather be living in right now.
Me, I'd rather be living in a country where the government doesn't fire the head of the nuclear regulatory agency for doing her job. I'd rather be living in a country that is willing to investigate credible accusation of complicity with torture. I'd rather be living in a country where the prime minister doesn't suspend parliament every time he gets his tail caught in a crack. I'd rather be living in a country that spends a billion dollars on helping the poor instead of dispensing political pork and encouraging police thuggery as part of an international dog-and-pony show. I'd rather be living in a country where the government wasn't providing instruction manuals to its members on how to disrupt parliamentary committees.
I'd rather live in a country where decisions are based on solid census data and scientific fact, not one where we spend a fortune building new prisons for criminals who don't exist outside of the imagination of fearmongering politicians.
I'd like to live in the tolerant, economic and socially progressive Canada I grew up in, not in a country run by a control-freak micromanager hell-bent on turning it into a laboratory for Randites, frat boys, authoritarians, religious zealots and ignorant yahoos.
I'd like to think that is what most Canadians want and why Stephen Harper won't get his majority.
I'd like to think that, but then Willy Loman posted this video and reminded me why our country is in trouble to begin with.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
No choice . . .
SLATE HAS A DISTURBING REPORT by Dahlia Lithwick, "The Death of Roe v. Wade", that sums up the state of access to abortion in the US, and it's not good. Check out the power-plays in Dahlia's scribe. Why should you care? It's a look at how the fundamentalist weasels operate. If Stevie gets a majority . . . it'll happen here.
Supporters and opponents of abortion seem to agree: It's no longer the law of the land.
The end result is that Roe remains on the books, while for all practical purposes women can't get an abortion in Ohio, North Dakota, or Florida.
There's one other (often forgotten) player in this elaborate game of chicken over reproductive rights, and that's the Supreme Court. Given that public opinion has changed virtually not at all since Roe v. Wade, my guess is still that the Roberts court is as uninterested in overturning the law as its challengers are in forcing the issue. It does not want to be the court that makes abortion illegal, or all-but-illegal, in America. The backlash would be staggering. The conservatives on the court are much happier with the status quo, allowing abortion as a matter of federal law while the states effectively outlaw it as a matter of fact. If the states continue to hollow out Roe from the core, there will be no reason for the court to hear an abortion case ever again.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Omar's crib . . .
IT REALLY PISSES ME OFF that nobody has asked our candidates about getting Omar out of Gitmo. Last week, Wikileaks released the operating manual for Omar's world, and according to Ryan Singel at WIRED, it's not pretty, organized by the same gang who set up Abu Ghraib:The manual also includes instructions on how to use military dogs to intimidate prisoners.
"MWD (Military Working Dogs) will walk 'Main Street' in Camp Delta during shifts to demonstrate physical presence to detainees," reads a directive in the "Psychological Deterrence" section. "MWD will not be walked through the blocks unless directed by the (Joint Detention Operations Group)."
The document was signed by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller. According to media reports, Miller introduced harsh interrogation methods to Guantánamo, such as shackling detainees into stress positions and using guard dogs to exploit what the former head commander in Iraq Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez referred to as "Arab fear of dogs."
Miller visited Iraq in 2003 to share the Guantánamo methods. Soon after that visit, the infamous Abu Ghraib photos were taken.
What a way to go . . .
“Euthanasia Coaster” is a hypothetical euthanasia machine in the form of a roller coaster engineered to humanely – with elegance and euphoria – take the life of a human being. Riding the coaster’s track, the rider is subjected to a series of intensive motion elements that induce various unique experiences: from euphoria to thrill, and from tunnel vision to loss of consciousness, and, eventually, death.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Saturday, April 16, 2011
On a negative note . . .
THE POLITICALLY-CORRECT CAN BE A REAL PAIN, as a young engineering student at the U of Waterloo found out. According to Justin Hyde's article in Jalopnik, "How a university punished a female engineering student for this bikini photo", Last month, one of Waterloo's Formula SAE engineering student — the leader of the chassis design team — needed modeling photos for an application to a Canadian beauty pageant and breast cancer charity. While the idea had been to pose in front of a borrowed Audi in the school's engineering design center, the student also posed with the SAE car in a two-piece bikini (a requirement of the competition); another female student also posed for a few shots. The photographer, also an engineering student, posted a few of the shots online.
Two weeks later, Waterloo's dean of engineering Adel Sedra announced the school was suspending the entire Formula SAE team through June 1 — blocking them from competing in the Michigan event. The reason? "Misuse of the student design centre space for an unauthorized photo shoot."
Grrrr. Bunch of wankers. Here's a shot of a triumphant Danica Patrick, the first woman to win a major open-wheel motor race. Somehow, they probably won't like it, either. Love that picture; Dan Gurney sure started something.
Friday, April 15, 2011
On a positive note . . .
"HOW DAVID BEATS GOLIATH" is a fine article by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker, on aspects of what it takes for the underdog to win. Plus cartoons, even.
When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win, Arreguín-Toft concluded, “even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn’t.”
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Hmmm . . . could happen
According to Bizarro. We Canadians know all about 'em, we got the Cootie Party of Canada, after all.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Words can change perspective . . .
A WONDERFUL little piece (1:48), "The Power of Words". H/T to Helmut, thank-you, sir.
Creativity persists . . .
IMPROBABLE RESEARCH has a report of interest: research into motorized pogo sticks is alive and well. Delightful site, lots of neat things.
No foolin' — and Canada is doing its part, too, with Université de Sherbrooke, Canada and its PSEUS project (Pogo-Stick Extreme of the University of Sherbrooke), which you see, above. The Americans are also jumping into the act, with efforts by University of California, Berkeley, US – The Pogomatic, and Carnegie Mellon University, US – The Bowgo. Then again, maybe they got inspired by the late, great John Entwistle.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
A week's groceries . . .
GOT THIS E-MAIL last week that's interesting to ponder. The author notes, "Notice how cheap the American diet is compared to that of the Europeans. With all of their meat and junk food, the Yanks spend less than $100 more than the Sicilians. Wonder where an average Canadian diet would fit in? Probably somewhere between the American and German."
Italy: The Manzo family of Sicily.
Food expenditure for one week: 214.36 Euros or $260.11
Germany: The Melander family of Bargteheide.
Food expenditure for one week: 375.39 Euros or $500.07
United States: The Revis family of North Carolina (Sure hope most American families eat more fresh fruits and vegetables and less junk food than this family.)
Food expenditure for one week $341.98
Mexico: The Casales family of Cuernavaca.
Food expenditure for one week: 1,862.78 Mexican Pesos or $189.09
Poland: The Sobczynscy family of Konstancin-Jeziorna.
Food expenditure for one week: 582.48 Zlotys or $151.27
Egypt : The Ahmed family of Cairo.
Food expenditure for one week: 387.85 Egyptian Pounds or $68.53
Ecuador : The Ayme family of Tingo.
Food expenditure for one week: $31.55
Bhutan : The Namgay family of Shingkhey Village. Food expenditure for one week: 224.93 ngultrum or $5.03
Chad : The Aboubakar family of Breidjing Camp.
Food expenditure for one week: 685 CFA Francs or $1.23
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Mop & Pail spots emperor walking streets naked
That bastion of Marxism and vanguard of the glorious revolution of the proletariat, The Globe and Mail, today brings us a story so shocking, a truth so revealing that it if absorbed by the general populace, will shake our economic and political firmament for years to come.
Ah yes, branding. You know, where they take a red hot piece of metal and burn the owner's mark into the hindquarters of a bull that has had its balls cut off and is being fattened for slaughter.So cutting taxes on the business sector simply results in the business sector having more money and the government having less to maintain roads, pay firefighters and fund education and health care. Well, I never. Will wonders never cease? Next thing you know some smart cookie is going to be telling us that boosting military spending and cutting taxes on corporations and the wealthy somehow leads to higher deficits or some other crazy notion.
Crossposted from The Woodshed
Tweet
Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth,
analysis reveals as election pledges fly
KAREN HOWLETT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Canadian companies have added tens of billions of dollars to their stockpiles of cash at a time when tax cuts are supposed to be encouraging them to plow more money into their businesses.Well, suck me dry and call me "Dusty!" You mean to tell me that supply-side economics - the notion that if you give tax breaks to rich people and corporations they will use it to create more wealth for all - is bullshit? That what really happens when you give rich people and corporations a tax break is that they pocket the money? No! That's, that's...unpossible!
Jim Flaherty, the Harper government’s Finance Minister, acknowledged in a telephone interview that corporate tax cuts are a tough sell when companies are still hoarding cash. But over the long term, he said, his “comfort zone” comes from the fact that business leaders and economists have widely endorsed tax cuts as a job creation tool.
“Most importantly,” he said, “it’s a confidence builder in Canada, and it’s a way of branding Canada.”
Ah yes, branding. You know, where they take a red hot piece of metal and burn the owner's mark into the hindquarters of a bull that has had its balls cut off and is being fattened for slaughter.
Crossposted from The Woodshed
Tweet
Monday, April 04, 2011
Operation Unified Protector
DAVID CENCIOTTI'S WEBLOG has a detailed account of the Libyan air adventure, that is worthy of your attention. Apparently, the Armée de l'Air and the RAF were really hot to trot:
all of a sudden, while the United Nation Security Council was about to give birth to Resolution 1973, France had already sent his fighters into the Libyan airspace, in a really atypical “air war kick off” that I’ve discussed and criticized since Day 1 debrief. With barely the coordination needed to deconflict planes operating in the same airspace, US, France and UK (each one using its own tankers) and a few other supporting nations, started an offensive air campaign that could lead to the destruction of the Libyan capability to use the force against the oppositors, in most cases with a target selection that had nothing to do with the mandate of the UN resolution, but that was (once again, suddenly), stopped, as soon as NATO took over the command of the operations and US had the first opportunity to step back.
As efficient as ever . . .
Sunday, April 03, 2011
| VIRTUALLY SPEAKING SUNDAY APRIL 3 A Counterpoint to the Sunday Morning Talking Heads @4pm pacific|7pm eastern - DAN ELLSBERG & GLENN GREENWALD: WikiLeaks, the abuse of Bradley Manning and the future of civil liberties in the U.S. Listen here @5pm pacific|8pm eastern - Maple Syrup Edition with Kevin Wood aka RevPaperboy, Dr.Dawg and @OurManinAbiko on the coming General Election in Canada and #Quakebook, a Twitter spawned response to Japan post quake and tsunami. Listen live here Beginning Tuesday, listen to the Maple Syrup Edition here •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• VIRTUALLY SPEAKING SUSIE with Susie Madrak MONDAY April 4 - 6pm pacific|9pm eastern The topic is Libya and the long haul. Susie's guest is writer, student, poet, musician, and political activist Rafael Noboa y Rivera. A decorated combat veteran of the Iraq War, Noboa y Rivera is currently completing studies in journalism at Ohio University’s Scripps School of Journalism. Recovering journalist and class warrior Susie Madrak explores the impact of current events on the daily lives of working class people. Listen here, live and later •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• THURSDAY DOUBLE HEADER APRIL 7 - 5pm pacific | 8pm eastern to 7pm pacific|10pm eastern VIRTUALLY SPEAKING A-Z JAY ACKROYD and STUART ZECHMAN Ongoing conversation about U.S. movement liberalism (as opposed to 3rd Way or centrist liberalism) in both an historical and current context. Listen here @ 5 pm pacific Beginning April 8 Listen here •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• @6pm slt - VIRTUALLY SPEAKING WITH JAY ACKROYD and guest economist WARREN MOSLER: Can Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending? Modern Monetary Theory says no. Listen here |
Visit Virtually Speaking at: http://virtuallyspeaking.ning.
Tweet
Election notebook
Some random thoughts on the election:
Tweet
- Stephen Harper, who not so long ago touted himself as the champion of "open and accountable" government, will only answer five questions a day on the campaign trail, and two of them have to be in French and one from "local" media. So the people from the Globe, the Star, CBC, NatPost, Sun, CTV, Global, CP, Ottawa Citizen, Calgary Herald, Vancouver Province et al have paid $10,000 to sit through spin session and Potempkin rallies and ask one or two questions for the whole campaign? I have a question: Are you fucking kidding me? Dammit Janet has a great post on just how bad things have gotten and Dr. Dawg hands out the white feathers
- The great debate debate rolls on over who gets to be included in the big blather off and whether it is fair to leave the Green Party or NDP or Bloc Quebecois or Liberals out. Harper has no interest in a debate, there is no advantage to had for him in taking part unless Ignatieff suddenly snaps and starts gibbering in Russian at the podium. Strategically, I can understand him not wanting to risk the exposure to a zinger or risk the cameras catching him with a bit of baby meat stuck in his fangs. I do think he has a moral responsibility to publicly debate the other leaders since that is how democracy is supposed to work re: free marketplace of ideas and all that, but then this is guy whose government fell over his unwillingness to reveal basic information about government policy that he is required by law to share with Parliament, so living up to his moral responsibilities isn't exactly his strong suit.
- Further to the debate debate, the Liberals are really passing up a golden opportunity at the moment. Harper has dithered over whether he will debate Ignatieff one on one, or whether he will take part in a full leaders' with or without Liz May and was actually asked whether he was "chicken" in a press conference Sunday (kudos to CBC's Terry Milewski for using up one of the two or three questions he will get to ask, though after the "chicken" question, I suspect it will be a hot day in Iqaluit before he gets called on again. The Liberals should have someone in a chicken costume at every single public appearance Harper makes from now until a debate is held.
- In a bit of pure pandering to the Rob Ford suburban voters, Harper has promised to increase the government subsidy for kids to play minor hockey and little league aka the child fitness tax credit from $500 to $1000 and to add a further $500 tax credit for adult fitness, just as soon as the budget is balanced (in other words, never). I'm sure all those urban poor who can't afford to feed their families will be delighted to know that they can get money back on their taxes if they join the gym.
- As happy as I am to see Jack Layton do the right thing and finally bring down the government instead of making a deal with the Conservatives to let them stay in power if they promise not to kick the poor, elderly and constitution too hard, I fear this may mean the NDP takes a shellacking as people vote strategically to dump Harper by backing the Liberals. Though, having said that, the NDP does stand to make some gains in Saskatchewan and in Edmonton where they ran second to the Conservatives due to strategic voting.
- Does anyone outside of the hard-core Conserva-borg base really think coalition governments are a terrible thing? Let's face it, any minority government is a de facto coalition between the government and the opposition parties for as long as the government is willing to court the oppostion or as long as the opposition is willing to go along with the government. The only difference being that in an official coalition, the minority partner usually gets a place at the cabinet table. No one, except Harper, has ever proposed forming a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois.
- The latest Conservative canard about ending per-vote subsidies deserves to be broadly, publically debunked on the front page of every newspaper and on every radio and television show. It ought to be shouted from the rooftops that having the taxpayers foot the bill for election campaigns means that taxpayers call the shots, not the fatcats. Doing away with the subsidies and allowing bigger individual, corporate and union donations means that politicians will be for sale to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder is not going to be ordinary Canadians.
- For all those who have been paying attention to the ongoing nuclear disaster in Japan, keep in mind that Stephen Harper fired Linda Keene as the head of the Canadian nuclear regulatory agency because she was concerned that an emergency system to provide power to the reactor cooling system at the aging Chalk River reactor was not connected and was not operational. The problems in Japan all stem from the fact that the cooling systems did not have power after the earthquake because the emergency generators could not be used.
- I think I am becoming even more addicted to the razor-sharp Kady O'Malley than I was before the election, if that is possible.
Tweet
Stevie ain't gonna like it . . .
STEVIE AND HIS OIL PATCH CRONIES are gonna be pissed — the New York Times editorial "No to a New Tar Sands Pipeline" is a resounding rejection of the proposed pipeline. With good reason, too:Later this year, the State Department will decide whether to approve construction of a 1,700-mile oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast called Keystone XL. The underground 36-inch pipeline, built by TransCanada, would link the tar sands fields of northern Alberta to Texas refineries and begin operating in 2013. The department should say no.
• • •
The environmental risks, for both countries, are enormous. The first step in the process is to strip-mine huge chunks of Alberta’s boreal forest. The oil, a tar-like substance called bitumen, is then extracted with steam or hot water, which in turn is produced by burning natural gas. The E.P.A. estimates that the greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil — even without counting the destruction of forests that sequester carbon — are 82 percent greater than those produced by conventional crude oil.
The project poses a major threat to water supplies on both sides of the border. Turning two tons of tar sand into a barrel of oil requires four times as much water as producing a barrel of conventional oil. Operations in Alberta have already created 65 square miles of toxic holding ponds, which kill migrating birds and pollute downstream watersheds, a serious matter for native communities.
• • •
The Keystone XL would cut diagonally across Montana and the Nebraska Sand Hills — a delicate region of porous, sandy soils — to northern Kansas before heading south to the Gulf. It would also cross the Ogallala Aquifer, a shallow underground reservoir of enormous importance for agriculture that also provides drinking water for two million people. A pipeline leaking diluted bitumen into groundwater could have disastrous consequences.
For this reason, Senators Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson of Nebraska have vigorously opposed the planned route of the Keystone XL. Still, political pressure to win swift approval has been building in Congress. Moving ahead would be a huge error. From all of the evidence, Keystone XL is not only environmentally risky, it is unnecessary.
