Harper, Harper, Harper... tisk, tisk

Letters come back to haunt us, don't they? Of course they do. Especially those letters that are meant only for certain eyes. Perhaps many of you know by now that a letter was leaked by the Liberals that contained PM Harper's true feelings on the Kyoto Accord. Not surprisingly to those of us who dislike the man and his ideological views, it consisted of rhetorical babble about the environment and climate change. Let me go over but a few of my personal favourite lines:

"the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord"

"Its based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate change"

"It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants"

"Canada is the only country in the world required to make significant cuts in emissions. Third World countries are exempt..."

"As the effects trickle through other industries, workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose"

This is actually in the letter. I have a few thinks to say in response:
1) jobs won't go away and the economy won't suffer if you come up with innovative policies and actions to improve environmentally friendly means of producing energy and help to retrain people in different areas if necessary. Sitting on you duff and complaining doesn't do anything;

2) the idea that the scientific evidence that explains climate change is innacurate is a non-issue today (or even in 2002 when the letter was written). Making this type of argument reflects an arogant view of the impact human's have on the earth. Just because its big doesn't mean you can't break it! THERE ARE 6 BILLION OF US!;

3) Yes, carbon dioxide is essential to life, on this we agree. But the carbon dioxide that is being spewed into the air nowadays used to be the air the dinosaurs breathed. That is not a good thing. Its stuck in the ground for a reason (NB: if Harper doesn't believe in the scientific evidence of mankind's impact on the earth, however, then he probably doesn't believe in dinosaurs);

4) This one really pisses me off. The idea that Canada can't bear the costs of changing its environmental reform and needs the assurance that Third World countries take up the slack is absolutely rediculous and ignorant. Several studies have shown that those most responsible for climate change are the rich countries like Canada, whereas those most affected by it are the poor third world countries. Act responsible and Grow Up!

5) The last quote is funny to me. I have never heard an economic conservative use the idea of "trickle" down in a negative connotation.

Well thats my rant. Please respond if you feel so inclined...but only if you believe in dinosaurs.

A Step Back for the Environment?

As many of you know Johanne Gélinas, Canada's environment commissioner, has claimed she was fired from her position. Gelinas is generally popular with the environment critics, and is considered a valuable member in the field.

This situation is supposedly due to Gelinas 'advocacy' approach to her position. There is dispute over how this approach fits into the Commisioner's role.

The reporting of this event, in my opinion, has relied entirely on the testimony of parliamentarians and 'personal whims' about Gelinas, whether they be negative or positive. As far as I have seen, nobody is considering whether in fact Gelinas was or was not doing her job, and thus was appropriately dismissed. There is also the issue that the two parlimentarians widely quoted, McGuinty and Cullen, are both members of opposition parties and as such the may have an interest in implying the presence of political pressure in Gelinas departure.

According to Auditor-Generals website, the Commisioner of the Environment's role is as follows:

The position of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is the result of important changes to the Auditor General Act in 1995. These amendments encourage stronger performance by the federal government in environmental and sustainable development areas.

The Commissioner provides parliamentarians with objective, independent analysis and recommendations on the federal government's efforts to protect the environment and foster sustainable development

Encouraging the government to be more accountable for greening its policies, operations, and programs is a key to the Commissioner's mandate. The Commissioner also assists the Auditor General with auditing of environmental and sustainable development issues.

More specifically, the Commissioner has responsibilities in four main areas:

Monitoring sustainable development strategies
Twenty-eight federal departments and agencies are required to prepare sustainable development strategies and update them every three years. The Commissioner monitors the extent to which departments have implemented the action plans and met the objectives outlined in their strategies.

Audits and special studies
The Commissioner conducts audits and special studies on the federal government’s performance in areas such as climate change, ozone depletion, management of toxic substances and greening government operations.

Environmental petitions
The 1995 amendments to the Auditor General Act created an environmental petitions process. Under this process, residents of Canada can forward a written petition to the Auditor General. Petitions must relate to environmental matters that are the responsibility of specific federal departments and agencies. The Commissioner monitors the status of these petitions and the government’s response to them.

Annual Report to the House of Commons
On a yearly basis, the Commissioner reports on environmental and sustainable development matters that she believes should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons. The report can include chapters on audits and studies, sustainable development strategies, and environmental petitions.


Clearly from this there is room for debate over the appropriateness of advocacy. Furthermore, one could contend whether Gelinas' actions are advocacy (for instance, Gelinas condemnation of the Conservative act can certainly be argued to be the core role of the Commisioner).

My personal position on this is that we simply are not being given the information on this topic. There is hint that a review will be released at a later date regarding the issue, but the finger pointing has already been done and no reporting on the genuine story has been accomplished. I feel that this type of reporting is what leads Canadians to political assumptions about our reality which are based on uncertainty at best.

I also think that this comes down to an issue of accountability. If Gelinas was fired, the reason should be reported without delay. If the Auditor-General doesn't have a good enough case to present to the public, she shouldn't be firing anyone. If the issue is that the Commisioner has overstepped the perceived boundary of her position, this too can be addressed, but in a professional fashion which inspires a sense of legitimacy.

To close, I really want to poiint back to my comment about the way in which this issue has been reported. Regardless of the real story, this is the story which we read and on which political opinions are based.

Dion: The target of Conservative attack ads.

Today on TV I saw a new commerical attacking Stephen Dion -- an ad obviously funded by the Conservative Party of Canada. It depicted Dion in the Liberal Leader Debate responding to an attack by Ignatieff saying "that's unfair...that's unfair.... do you know how hard it is to make priorities"?

Personally, even though I'm a die-hard Liberal, I will admit that those aren't the words that I want the leader of my country to use. I thought that this ad was an effective attack because it wasn't personal and it wasn't vindictive. The conversation used in the commerical came directly from the mouth of Dion, and as such it is hard to refute. Clearly, when watching the commercial it is hard to grasp the context but as a viewer it is hard to sympathize with Dion.

I think this is a good example of a negative/attack ad what do you guys think???

2007 Federal Election?

Harper addresses the issue of a possible election in the Globe and Mail in the following excerpt:

*OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he has no incentive to engineer his government's defeat and trigger an election during the spring session of Parliament that starts Monday. After all, Mr. Harper told The Canadian Press, there's little imminent prospect of a Conservative majority government.“What would be the point of an election, especially if it would just result in another minority anyway?” the Prime Minister said in an interview.
Mr. Harper begins his second year in office with public opinion surveys suggesting he wins high marks for leadership, but his party has actually lost support from the 36 per cent of voter backing it received a year ago on election night. The Prime Minister insisted he doesn't pay attention to such matters.“I'm not concerned about the polls,” Mr. Harper said.*

According to a poll by the Globe and Mail, 86% of participants do not want a spring election. What do you guys think? Do you want an election? Personally, I want Harper out; I can't stand him or his cutting of programs and active military issue. I think Dion could make a viable opposition candidate, although I think a lot of people (especially the eldery) still feel a bit sore about the Liberals. As well, I hope that the Green Party gains more seats. Elizabeth May makes a strong leader and with all the greening of public policy and voter values, she may have a chance for some seats. I think most people are against another election because it is time and money consuming. Most people don't want to have to go through that process again, especially if nothing changes.

Harper Still Doesn't Get it

Today Prime Minister Harper issued a formal appology to Mahar Arar and stated that the government of Canada will be giving him a $10.5 million settlement. This has been a long time comming for sure. It was necessary for the Canadian Government to do something for Arar and his family after the inhumane things that were done to him in Syria due to North American neglect and stupidity.

My issue, however, is once again with the way Harper was fielding the questions posed to him at the press conference, which was broadcast on CBC NewsWorld. While answering a question related to the Arar settlement, Harper stated something to the effect of, 'this settlement is reasonable considering the neglegence of the former Canadian Government' - I am paraphrasing obviously. Mr Arar deserved and apology from the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT, not from the "New" Canadian Government on behalf of the "Old" Canadian Government. I'm not sure if Harper realizes he is saying things like this, or if he just does it because all of his press conferences over the last year have been like a broken record with this rhetoric looped.

For the sake of Mr. Arar and his family Harper should have left the politics alone for this one time so that justice - as Harper agrees is so necessary in this case - could be served.

Think Book Burning Only Happens in Communist China? Guese Again....

Not sure if alot of people know this, but the Canadian government prevents certain books and other "forbidden knowledge" to be read by Canadians. What bothers me the most is their ban on certain "propaganda" aka books that have dissident views and overall a different view of the world. They try to justify their censorship by saying they want to "protect children from obscene material," or "hate." Trotsky could not have thought of a better saying than that. This kind of censorship is slowly reaching the internet, but they will have a harder time enforcing such an initiative. And yes by "burn" I mean literally they burn the books. I even know someone that called the Canadian Border Information Service and asked about their procedures and yes they do destroy them by actually burning them. I also recently read how in the U.S there is now plans to have bloggers registerd with the government. I guese too much information is getting out.

More on the American situation here: http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2007/180107Bloggers_Prison.htm

Some links on Canadian censorship here:

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/E/pub/cm/d9-1-15/d9-1-15-e.html

http://www.freedomtoread.ca/default.asp

Minorities in the Media

As I was watching an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (A quality show by the way), I couldn't help but think of last week's lectures given by Prof. Nesbitt-Larking and Prof. Gibson regarding minority representation and presentation in the media. Especially the bit about minorities usually portrayed in stereotypical, demeaning or villainous roles. In a recent episode, it was basically about an Indo-Pakistani serial rapist who went around raping girls of all backgrounds in his college dorm. The victims who belonged to groups who were non-white were portrayed as weak, traditional, and being disowned by their hyper-conservative families, while the others were portrayed as tough "survivors". In addition, there was the usual rough housing from the formerly gangster turned cop African American (Ice-T), and angry thuggish behaviour from a Hispanic cop, along with the level headedness of the Caucasian cops Stabler and Benson, and the meek, quiet role provided by the unit's resident FBI forensic psychologist, George Huang, an Asian.

It's interesting to think that despite being in a progressive and more knowledgeable society, different groups are neatly slotted into particular roles, not unlike minority portrayals 20-30 years ago. The minority characters may wear the latest fashions, but they are still subjected to the type-casting befitting their ethnic stereotype.

Thoughts?

Another Example How the Media Lies To You

Remember the now famous quote: "Israel must be wiped off the map" by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Well this is kinda old but he never said that statement. But what does that matter eh? Anyway what he really said was "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad" which translates to: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Anyway here is a great article that sums everything up:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527

And the moral of the story is...............never believe anything until you double check yourself, especially using non-mainstream sources.

Barack Obama

As I'm sure many of you know, Barack Obama, currently the Senator for Illinois, is planning on running as a Democrat in the upcoming American presidential election. I came across some interesting things on him, particularly a video of him adressing the public about his presidential plans: http://www.barackobama.com/video/ .

He's a really interesting candidate, very liberal, especially considering the current president. In the video, he speaks openly about his disapproval of the war in Iraq and talks about things like health care and schooling. I'm not sure if these things will be met with approval from Southern Republicans who are concerned with taxes and defense. I'm not sure how things will turn out, but it's nice to see some change, as in two of the candidates for the Democrats were Hilary Rodham Clinton (a woman) and Barack Obama (a Black man). Certainly an achievement for America.

Below is an excerpt from the above website with background information on Obama:


Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, where he grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British.
Barack’s mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in small-town Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression, and then signed up for World War II after Pearl Harbor, where he marched across Europe in Patton’s army. Her mother went to work on a bomber assembly line, and after the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program, and moved west to Hawaii. It was there, at the University of Hawaii, where Barack’s parents met. His mother was a student, and his father had won a scholarship that allowed him to leave Kenya and pursue his dreams in America.
Barack’s father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University in 1983.
“My mother was from Kansas, which is where I got my accent from."
Remembering the values of empathy and service that his mother taught him, Barack put law school and corporate life on hold after college and moved to Chicago in 1985, where he became a community organizer with a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment.
“The best education I received was working with people in the community on a grassroots basis. Because what it taught me was that ordinary people, when they are working together can do extraordinary things."
The group had some success, but Barack had come to realize that in order to truly improve the lives of people in that community and other communities, he needed the skills that only a more professional education could offer.
He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard in 1991, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. Soon after, he returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer and teach constitutional law. Finally, his advocacy work led him to run for the Illinois State Senate, where he served for seven years.
In 2003, Barack launched his improbable race for the United States Senate. Even with many primary contenders, an imported Republican challenger and a budget six times smaller than his opponent’s, Barack won a landslide victory. Even then, he stood out alone among the major candidates, opposing the war in Iraq.
As a US Senator, Barack has continued to work on the issues that represent the ideals and aspirations of so many. He’s helped pass major measures that combat the international trafficking of nuclear weapons, promote the use of alternative fuels, and open up the budget process to greater public scrutiny. In all of these efforts, he’s brought Democrats and Republicans together for the common good.
Above all his accomplishments and experiences, Barack is most proud and grateful for his family. His wife, Michelle, and his two daughters, Malia, 8, and Sasha, 5, live on Chicago’s South Side where they attend Trinity United Church of Christ.

More Troops to Iraq

Hey class, hope everyone had a great winter holiday!!

In 2003, Bush had strong support from his nation in the Iraqi invasion. Support has diminished over the past few years, leaving Bush with all time low approval ratings. Both Republics and Democrats are criticising Bush for his decision to send another 21500 troops to Iraq. Many senators have made their unapproving views known. Senator Chuck Hagel called it "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out." It is also noted that although Tony Blair supports this new plan, Britain will continue to withdraw its troops as previously planned.

Possible Presidential candidates, John Kerry and Chris Dodd (Conneticut Senator) have also made similar comments. With presidential elections one year away, this proves to be a critical time for candidates to gain America's support. My question to the class is, how do you think presidential candidates will use Bush's decision to gain public support?

Here's the article from today's London Free Press,
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/International/2007/01/12/3320153-sun.html

Should Industry pay for Emissions?

With the present resurgence of 'Green' concerns across our nation, I am hoping to receive comments on this idea which has been popular on and off for at least the past few years.

Many environmental activists argue that citizens should not bear the responsibility of emission costs, but that cost should be passed on to the industries which produce emissions.

This approach was a key aspect of Kyoto, but certainly can be a hot topic when considered on both the national and international level.

My personal view is that this approach simply won't make a difference. My reasoning is that if companies have to pay for their emissions, they will do so... and pass on the cost to the consumer. Given that every individal and business relies on products created through processes creating emissions, there won't actually be any incentive for companies to change their habits. On the flip side, the likely result is that we as consumers will simply stop supporting our own industries and instead purchase from companies overseas who are likely-as-not engaged in activities worse than those domestically.

Clearly, it is not a core-competency of the fossil fuel-based industries to eliminate their basis of existence, and we need that industry for our continued existence at least in the short term. For this reason, my belief is that the plan aimed at developing new forms of energy needs to be the first step so that the environment and the economy can be upheld in partnership.

My thought is that we need to encourage investment in research and development in this sector. As this is developed and promoted as a national interest the more harmful industrial practices can be phased out. The investment should be chaired by the current 'offending' companies, as this way these companies can be a part of change and find their profits gradually shifting to new and less harmful methods of production. There is little doubt that the technology and science exists, the problem is that is simply isn't profitable. The reason for this: we are petroleum-addicts and aren't willing to take on alternative action. If this is to be our goal as a country, then we should get the energy giants on side rather than trying to penalize them for providing us with exactly what we have asked them to provide us with. They are not the 'bad guys', consumers are, and as such we need to work together to produce new and challenging ways to foster mankind's future.

As a middle power in the world, it is up to countries like Canada to set an example for smaller powers and to collaboratively put pressure on larger powers, to make a change. And within this country, it will be us - the young and upcoming members of the political and business community - who will have to put in the effort on this project.

For an article on the issue from the G&M please see the following link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070110.wxenviron10/BNStory/National/home

Blatant Propaganda in....Video Games?

Blatant Propaganda in....Video Games?

I was browsing through the Globe and Mail, and came across this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20061222.gtgaming2122/BNStory/AtPlay/home

It seems like content in video games have taken a new low in what kind of stuff the ESRB allows to be sold. In this game called "Left Behind: Eternal Forces", you apparently play as some sort of hero fundamentalist in post-apocalyptic New York fighting liberals, university professors, and suspiciously pseudo Arabic anti-Christ U.N forces while converting "neutrals" into Christians. It's obvious that this game was intended as a propaganda recruitment tool not unlike underground games made by terrorist and white supremacist groups, but unlike in those cases this game was commercially available to the mainstream public. Commercially sold propaganda games is not new like "America's Army" made by the U.S army as a recruitment tool, but this game seems to be an all new low.

Interestingly enough, this game received universally low scores from all major game reviewing outlets, and not because it's controversial, just that it's a terrible game overall. So this begs the question, should one be concerned with games like these or simply laugh them off along with their ludicrous premises?

Check out some screenshots:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/leftbehindeternalforces/screenindex.html

The Wrath of Khan!

I just got word of the latest situation in Parliament. Wajid Khan, an Ontario Liberal MP, has recently crossed over to the Tories. Apparently Khan was given the choice by Dion to either continue advising Harper on mid-east issues as a Tory, or stop advising him all together and tow the party line. If this is indeed what Mr. Dion did I believe it is a bad mistake. This decision will only give fodder to those who argue that the "new" Liberal party is the same top-down operation as the Party under previous leaders. As I understand it, Khan was simply trying to help the government in its mid-east policy by shedding some light on the boarder situation between Afghanistan and Pakistan (Khan is a former pilot in the Pakistani military).

I think Khan's decision, if it was genuinly for the benefit of the soldiers in Afghanistan, was the right one. Mr. Dion, on the other hand, has to pick his battles more carfully in the future.