Goodbye wheat board. Elections in the senate. Militaristic stance on world affairs. Shunning UN. The equivalent of "Drill, Baby, Drill." Good Christ, I'm living in the US!
Remember the phrase... you won't recognize Canada when I get through with it.
Canada doesn't need to be a little US. We aren't going to achieve anything by copying our gridlocked and partisan friends from the south. We don't need a Prime Minister who considers himself a demigod who can make his own rules.
Fuck me, we have to find a way to hang onto our Country!
We need to start finding ways to keep the powers of the Prime Minister in check. The job of citizens has always been to keep power from eroding rights.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Oil Sands: Trouble for the Government?
I think there is room for a dark horse to enter into oil sands pipeline debate.
Consider if you will the position of the US on selling Canadian oil to China. We already have Chinese ownership of one oil sands project and I can almost guarantee that China has plenty of money on the table if the Gateway project gets the green light.
What will Uncle Sam think? Though I doubt Uncle Sam has the nads to stand up to big oil these days I do think his relative the military-industrial complex does. Especially when you add all the hawks hiding in government agencies with three letter acronyms.
Here is one scenario for you. Companies, such as one causing a ruckus in London Ontario, wreak havoc on public perception of the Harper government. XL or else! We have many companies that are foreign owned which would be willing to make a stink if it meant breaking a union and suddenly getting great concessions across the border.
How this one plays out is ongoing delays from the US while we slowly come to the conclusion that BC wants to maintain a tanker moratorium -- and Harper can back down saying he doesn't want to step into the provincial domain in this regard any more than he does for health care.
Magically, after a reasonable period of time so it doesn't look too connected, the XL project gets under way with some added environmental protection to give the incumbent at the time something to crow about for the left while talking jobs and economy for the right.
Unfortunately, I can't see the development of the oil sands being stopped, no matter whether or not a pipeline is built.
I guess we can hope for the lessor of all evils? How many examples would it take to rile the citizens before our majority mad government would decide to care about the consequences.
Addendum:
The following article, from TheStar, about the Harper government trying to find ways past the regular approval process due to the length of time it will take raises some interesting questions:
Consider if you will the position of the US on selling Canadian oil to China. We already have Chinese ownership of one oil sands project and I can almost guarantee that China has plenty of money on the table if the Gateway project gets the green light.
What will Uncle Sam think? Though I doubt Uncle Sam has the nads to stand up to big oil these days I do think his relative the military-industrial complex does. Especially when you add all the hawks hiding in government agencies with three letter acronyms.
Here is one scenario for you. Companies, such as one causing a ruckus in London Ontario, wreak havoc on public perception of the Harper government. XL or else! We have many companies that are foreign owned which would be willing to make a stink if it meant breaking a union and suddenly getting great concessions across the border.
How this one plays out is ongoing delays from the US while we slowly come to the conclusion that BC wants to maintain a tanker moratorium -- and Harper can back down saying he doesn't want to step into the provincial domain in this regard any more than he does for health care.
Magically, after a reasonable period of time so it doesn't look too connected, the XL project gets under way with some added environmental protection to give the incumbent at the time something to crow about for the left while talking jobs and economy for the right.
Unfortunately, I can't see the development of the oil sands being stopped, no matter whether or not a pipeline is built.
I guess we can hope for the lessor of all evils? How many examples would it take to rile the citizens before our majority mad government would decide to care about the consequences.
Addendum:
The following article, from TheStar, about the Harper government trying to find ways past the regular approval process due to the length of time it will take raises some interesting questions:
- Would this imply the Harper government is playing hardball?
- Is energy a Moby Dick for Harper?
- Will bulling through the Gateway project spell the end for Harper?
- Is there enough hidden money on the line he'll sink the conservative party in the process?
Stay tuned, this looks to be an interesting if pricey proposition.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Where the Right Goes Wrong
I like to suggest that all sides of a debate generally bring something of value to the discussion.
With the current flavor of attack politics that we see this can often be hard to fathom. However, let's take a look at the concept of lower income level citizens and social programs that exist to support them.
What we often hear from the right is that people depend on these programs and become a burden on society. The preferred solution seems to be to cut funding and propose that everyone is personally responsible for themselves -- never mind that many effects in society are well outside the scope of personal ability to affect.
So, where does the right go wrong?
In the parlance of the right wing the policy they propose will leave the class of citizens they decry in a state that suggests many will receive less education and income than other segments of society. Strangely, these attributes are also ones that often lead to larger families and less advantages for children. What the right wing response is most likely to do is create a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy.
What is even more strange is that the right wing often assumes that poorer people vote left as it is the left which is most likely to extend aid.
Now, let's take a look at a solution that involves elements of both left and right thinking. From the left we start with the assumption that most people do not want to be using government assistance and that they would prefer to be self-sufficient. We help them get back on track.
However, we have to be able to find what merits may exist in the right's arguments. We need to make sure that people who are on assistance for longer periods of time find it harder to stay there. We need to find ways to both help them integrate effectively into the economy and later to be more forceful in that regard. This implies all of our bleeding heart tendencies can be expressed during the first segment of an assistance event and gradually tail off into a harder nosed right wing stance.
Obviously, this is fairly superficial analysis. Even so, I hope you will realize that moving lower income individuals into higher layers of the middle class is perhaps one of the easiest ways to increase productivity, lower taxes, and reduce the ranks of those most likely to end up on social assistance of some type.
Both the bleeding heart liberals and the hard nosed conservatives actually have an ability to contribute to a more optimal solution.
Sadly, we don't get this. Our politics are broken.
With the current flavor of attack politics that we see this can often be hard to fathom. However, let's take a look at the concept of lower income level citizens and social programs that exist to support them.
What we often hear from the right is that people depend on these programs and become a burden on society. The preferred solution seems to be to cut funding and propose that everyone is personally responsible for themselves -- never mind that many effects in society are well outside the scope of personal ability to affect.
So, where does the right go wrong?
In the parlance of the right wing the policy they propose will leave the class of citizens they decry in a state that suggests many will receive less education and income than other segments of society. Strangely, these attributes are also ones that often lead to larger families and less advantages for children. What the right wing response is most likely to do is create a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy.
What is even more strange is that the right wing often assumes that poorer people vote left as it is the left which is most likely to extend aid.
Now, let's take a look at a solution that involves elements of both left and right thinking. From the left we start with the assumption that most people do not want to be using government assistance and that they would prefer to be self-sufficient. We help them get back on track.
However, we have to be able to find what merits may exist in the right's arguments. We need to make sure that people who are on assistance for longer periods of time find it harder to stay there. We need to find ways to both help them integrate effectively into the economy and later to be more forceful in that regard. This implies all of our bleeding heart tendencies can be expressed during the first segment of an assistance event and gradually tail off into a harder nosed right wing stance.
Obviously, this is fairly superficial analysis. Even so, I hope you will realize that moving lower income individuals into higher layers of the middle class is perhaps one of the easiest ways to increase productivity, lower taxes, and reduce the ranks of those most likely to end up on social assistance of some type.
Both the bleeding heart liberals and the hard nosed conservatives actually have an ability to contribute to a more optimal solution.
Sadly, we don't get this. Our politics are broken.
Revamping the Election Process
There is a lot of talk about creating a better election process but I don't see many proposals. Here is one which would be simple, effective and cost neutral.
Here are the particulars:
I know what you are thinking. How can not have already done this if such a simple and easy solution exists? Well, it would remove a lot of power from special interest groups.
Nobody likes to let go of power, do they.
Here are the particulars:
- We keep both a senate and a parliament but populate them differently.
- Proportional representation is done by filling sets via selecting from election participants based on the percentage of votes in each riding.
- We keep our current model intact as it is.
- Proportionally elected representatives reside in Parliament.
- Traditionally elected representatives reside in Senate.
- Both houses are repopulated as a result of each national election.
- For example, if party X won 10% of the national vote they'd fill 10% of the seats. They must fill those seats based on which candidates in party X won the highest percentage of votes in their own ridings.
- This implies that our current model of government is better than the senate. We can replace the patronage fossils in the senate with the results from our current election model.
I know what you are thinking. How can not have already done this if such a simple and easy solution exists? Well, it would remove a lot of power from special interest groups.
Nobody likes to let go of power, do they.
Keystone XL Issues
Care to hear about Keystone XL from a source other than big oil?
While this gentleman get's concerned about big oil "threatening" the President of the United States with political consequences if the pipeline is not approved I find the overview of the project and it's reported purpose to be much more interesting.
While this gentleman get's concerned about big oil "threatening" the President of the United States with political consequences if the pipeline is not approved I find the overview of the project and it's reported purpose to be much more interesting.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Why a National Energy Strategy?
This answer to this question is simple. So that either BC can be forced to accept a pipeline, the government of BC can be given a means of avoiding blame, or most likely provide a means of funneling enough money around to ensure public opinion is ignored.
I think this due to government spin and propaganda that has already started to build -- such as the bogus Chaquita boycott. Also, if you've been on Twitter recently perhaps you've seen how blatant the links are between government, Ethical Oil and Our Decision.
If you don't know what I'm referring to when I mention a national energy strategy here is an article on the Calgary Herald.
Northern Gateway: A Tale of Two Provinces
But B.C.’s political class, in a province with a more powerful tradition of populist politics and environmental activism, is more wary of the proposal to build a bitumen pipeline from just outside Edmonton to Kitimat on the B.C. northern coast.
In fact, as the debate over the Northern Gateway project shifts into high gear, all levels of government, as well as Enbridge itself, are wrestling with a major dilemma: How to convince British Columbians that there is enough economic reward to offset environmental risks.Why do I think this?
I think this due to government spin and propaganda that has already started to build -- such as the bogus Chaquita boycott. Also, if you've been on Twitter recently perhaps you've seen how blatant the links are between government, Ethical Oil and Our Decision.
If you don't know what I'm referring to when I mention a national energy strategy here is an article on the Calgary Herald.
Harper's Government Works Hard
Sadly, the Harper government is working hard at tarnishing Canada's image worldwide.
As the article discussed below exemplifies we are now willing to deceive our allies worldwide. Never mind that their ability to be fooled rests on decades of honest dealings. Never mind that putting such a high priority on short term goals makes all future goals harder to achieve. Never mind that our weakened international reputation will have consequences on us for decades.
As soon as you have to start lying to people, never mind your friends, you know that there is something seriously wrong with your actions.
What I can't understand is why people go along with such behavior. The fact that you prefer a conservative government over a liberal government is not worth selling your soul over. If you believe in democracy at all you should understand that respect and tolerance for other people, and their opinions, is part of what you believe in.
However, as in America, it's now become all about using democracy to wrest power away from others, often through negative or downright deceptive propaganda, to get power.
Oh well, at least we know the Harper deceit and propaganda departments are working hard... sigh.
Addendum:
Notice, another foreign interest in Canadian oil sands issues... BP.
As the article discussed below exemplifies we are now willing to deceive our allies worldwide. Never mind that their ability to be fooled rests on decades of honest dealings. Never mind that putting such a high priority on short term goals makes all future goals harder to achieve. Never mind that our weakened international reputation will have consequences on us for decades.
UK 'extraordinarily naive' over Canada's tar sands lobbyingWhat a short-sighted self-righteous attitude for our government to act on the ego of leadership thinking that their views are so important, so correct, that it's worth lying to the world in order to get what we want.
The Canadian government has repeatedly argued that the EU proposal, under the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), is unworkable. According to a UK Foreign Office document released under Freedom of Information rules, a London-based Canadian diplomat called Sushma Gera met her UK counterparts on 21 October.
"Sushma told me that the US consideration of similar measures had just failed, as it was 'unimplementable'. She promised to send further details," reads the record of the meeting. The only similar measures in the US are being delivered by California's Air Resources Board, which has now written to Europe's Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, to clear up what the ARB describes tactfully as a "misunderstanding".
The ARB letter, which I have seen, is a clear rebuttal of the Canadian arguments and states: "The principle of accounting for the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of transportation fuels, including those associated with the production and transportation of crude oil, continues to be an important feature of the [Californian] Low Carbon Fuel Standard." The measures are clearly alive and well, not failed.
At the same meeting, Gera had also pushed Canada's official line that "the reporting requirements in the [EU] proposal would impose a significant administrative and financial burden on companies". Oil giant BP, which has significant tar sands interests, told Baker the same in a letter, claiming: "The regulatory burden would be considerable at a time when the industry is already creaking under the weight of a heavy regulatory regime."
As soon as you have to start lying to people, never mind your friends, you know that there is something seriously wrong with your actions.
What I can't understand is why people go along with such behavior. The fact that you prefer a conservative government over a liberal government is not worth selling your soul over. If you believe in democracy at all you should understand that respect and tolerance for other people, and their opinions, is part of what you believe in.
However, as in America, it's now become all about using democracy to wrest power away from others, often through negative or downright deceptive propaganda, to get power.
Oh well, at least we know the Harper deceit and propaganda departments are working hard... sigh.
Addendum:
Notice, another foreign interest in Canadian oil sands issues... BP.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Gov't Ties to Ethical Oil / Our Decision Apparent
If you can't see the connection you are being willfully blind:
Seriously, is there any idiot out there who can't see how this game is played?
Never mind all the foreign interests funding the process of getting access to our oil and the foreign interests that stand to profit by exploiting our oil. You do know that PetroChina is one of the key players in this process? You do know that China has a lot of ethics and environmental problems?
This is transparent as can be. Wake up.
If you want to see what foreign influence is check out this newspaper article. While I'm happy to see some journalism on the topic I'd like to find out where the money is flowing. Canada's policies have taken an about face and we are selling our souls to China -- who's been bought and who's turning a blind eye. The cast of characters is not that big...
‘Foreign money’ could gum up pipeline approval, Harper warnsAnd this folks is how representative government gets put aside. A propaganda arm stirs up a fake controversy and gives the government an excuse to take draconian action if they find that there is a lot of public opposition.
“Growing concern has been expressed to me about the use of foreign money to really overload the public consultation phase of regulatory hearings just for the purpose of slowing down the process,” the Prime Minister told reporters Friday in Edmonton. “This is something that is not good for the Canadian economy and the government of Canada will be taking a close look at how we can ensure that our regulatory processes are effective and deliver decisions in a reasonable amount of time.”
Seriously, is there any idiot out there who can't see how this game is played?
Never mind all the foreign interests funding the process of getting access to our oil and the foreign interests that stand to profit by exploiting our oil. You do know that PetroChina is one of the key players in this process? You do know that China has a lot of ethics and environmental problems?
This is transparent as can be. Wake up.
If you want to see what foreign influence is check out this newspaper article. While I'm happy to see some journalism on the topic I'd like to find out where the money is flowing. Canada's policies have taken an about face and we are selling our souls to China -- who's been bought and who's turning a blind eye. The cast of characters is not that big...
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Stephen Woodworth MP in a Time Warp?
I'm not sure about this one.
Did Stephen Woodworth just reply to an 18h old tweet concerning tonight's breaking discussion of considering legislation to curtail women's rights?
If so, there was obviously some prior discussion somewhere.
Did Stephen Woodworth just reply to an 18h old tweet concerning tonight's breaking discussion of considering legislation to curtail women's rights?
If so, there was obviously some prior discussion somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)