Just because....

I wanna keep all of these wonderful ads on display on liblogs.













Recommend this Post

Baird uses False Allegation already deemed false by the House

Baird uses the same false information to besmirch liberals. Reference to "buying 5 Billion Dollars of hot air from Russia" which was already deemed false when Rona Ambrose used it last year. A request to retract and table the document Baird was reading from has been requested. Recommend this Post

Serious question for TJX Companies, Inc. owner of Winners and HomeSense in Canada

If they knew on or about December 15, 2006 that this information had been stolen, why wait until well after the Christmas shopping and Boxing day melee to let consumers know of the Security Breach?

The majority of people shop like mad during this period and wouldn't notice a small transaction here or there that may have been fraudulently charged. Had consumers been notified they could have started to monitor their credit cards, etc since we have access to all this through web banking now.

Were they more concerned about their profit during this period than they were their faithful customers credit/debit accounts?

No one has asked this question or addressed it willingly. I wouldn't have been affected as I haven't shopped there in years, but I know I never will again after this mess. Why would I trust them? Recommend this Post

Morality Study - People of Faith vs Agnostics/Atheists

I encountered an interesting study on morality. Its a comparison between responses between people who I dentify themselves as religious and those who identify themselves as atheist/agnostic. Many religious people contend that atheist/agnostic individuals are immoral due to the fact they do not believe in a god and even go so far as to insist that without religion society would become immoral and all hell would break lose.

Below I will give three situations. I would like to hear what you would choose in each situation and if you have faith or not. As well why you made those choices You can post anonymously if you feel uncomfortable about people knowing your beliefs. Tomorrow I will provide the results of the study.

Situation A

A train carrying five people is about to crash and all the people aboard will die. You are standing near a switch which would direct the train onto a side rail where a man is walking. The man's body would stop the train which would save everyone aboard but unfortunately would kill the man walking on the side rail.

What do you do?

Situation B

A child is drowning and you have the opportunity to jump in and save the child but you would get your trousers wet.

What do you do?

Situation C

Yo are a doctor and five people are dying in a hospital and organ transplants would save them. They all need different organs. There is a healthy man in the waiting room. If you took his organs five people would live but he would die.

What do you do?

I look forward to your repsonses.


UPDATE

Actual Study Results as promised.

These numbers were identical for both Religious People and Agnostics/Atheists

Situation A

Scarifice man to save 5 people - 90%
Wouldn't sacrifice man to save 5 people - 10%

Situation B

Save the child - 97%
Wouldn't do it because would make trousers wet - 3%

Situation C

Sacrifice man for organs to save 5 people - 10%
Wouldn't sacrifice him for organs to save 5 - 90%

As can be seen the reponses were the same for both religious people and agnostics/atheists.

Personal Note

I found it strange, personally, the discrepancy between Situation A & C as I found no difference between these situations. Both involved sacrificing someone for the sake of many yet there was no difference in the results between religious people and agnostics/atheists on both these. In situation A the majority found it ok but in Situation C it wasn't yet it is the same type of situation. Situation A was a religious allegory yet atheists/agnostics also would sacrifice the man for the sake of saving 5 people. Goes to show, morals are inate to human beings not religion, even in the complexity that such decisions entail. Recommend this Post

The truth about the CPC and Mr. Arar. Setting the Record Straight.

So Mr. Harper has decided to make the apology to Mr. Arar a partisan issue. He's blaming the previous government for his detainment and subsequent torture. That is strange. I clearly remember something different coming from one of his faces just 4 years ago.

When Mr. Arar was first detained in 2002, the Conservatives didn’t hesitate to convict Mr. Arar and criticize the previous Liberal government’s attempts to Free him.

During discussion about Mr. Arar in the House of Commons on November 18, 2002, Stephen Harper, then leader of the Canadian Alliance Party, accused then Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham of participating “in high-level consultations to defend a suspected terrorist" when Mr. Graham demanded the release of Mr. Arar.

Mr. Harper was later quoted as saying that the Liberal government "has been hitting the snooze button on security matters," implying that the Liberal government should have arrested Mr. Arar instead of the U.S. government.

During the very same Question Period, Diane Ablonczy, Member of Parliament for Calgary--Nose Hill, stated: "Arar was given dual Syrian and Canadian citizenship by the government. It did not pick up on his terrorist links and the U.S. had to clue it in. How is it that the U.S. could uncover this man's background so quickly when the government's screening system failed to find his al-Qaeda links?"

Then, on November 19, 2002, Stockwell Day, also then member of the Canadian Alliance, said in reference to the detention of Mr. Arar: "There is a lack of vigilance in the country on terrorism.” He also called for a Parliamentary inquiry to determine why the Liberals were defending a man suspected of links to al-Qaeda when U.S. officials were accusing him of terrorism charges. (“PM Demands release of Ottawa man,” Ottawa Citizen, July 29, 2003.)

So, lets get our facts straight shall we.

Awfully tough crow to chew on hey Harper, Day, and Ablonczy? Stop propogating your lies. Everyone knows better and they are getting sick of it. Recommend this Post

The 'Baird' Minimum

Love that phrase, "Baird" Minimum. Bob Rae coined it on friday I believe.

So we have had a flurry of of announcements reinstating Liberal programs that have been pared down to the point that they are either useless or only available to the affluent.

This is the "Baird" minimum. Just enough to look like they did something, which they did but it was backtracking. We lost a year and whittled down programs will not only fail to recover that year but will also be slightly ineffective in the future, but that is the nature of the 'Baird' minimum.

So they are going to announce mandatory emission caps. When? Will it be in 2050 again? Doubt it. Most likely it will take place like the rest of their announcements last week, sometime in April, after the budget that they could be brought down on. Convenient to say the least. They will look green with the 'Baird' minimum, get the majority they want (not on your life) and then cancel the programs and emissions targets. If they are kept in a minority situation without an election then we can see if they actually are honest brokers.

Which is probably why Stephane Dion may support the budget. He probably can't refuse because some of the budget is for liberal environmental programs (all over again) and it would be nice to hold Harpers feet to the fire for a bit. To see if he is serious and to chop away more of his conservative base because he's acting like a Liberal.

I am still waiting for more. What they announced is less than we already had prior to January 2006.

Mr. Baird, we are still waiting for the Conservative Plan for the environment. Haven't heard anything new yet. Recommend this Post

Stevilocks and the Three Bairds

Once upon a time, there was a little man named Stevilocks. He went for a walk to Parliament. Pretty soon, he came upon the "House" of the three Bairds. He knocked and, when no one answered, he walked right in.

At the desk, there were three publications. Stevilocks was desperate. He read from the first publication.

"This one is too hot!" , he exclaimed, If I acted on this the oil patch would get pissed.

So, he read the second publication.

"This one is too cold!," he said, "No one would vote for me if I did this!"

So, he read from the last publication.

"Oh Oh, This one was right!," he said.

After he'd read from the three Bairds' publications he decided he was feeling a little tired from all the obfuscating, so he went upstairs to the bedroom.

He laid down in the first bed, but it was too hard.

Then he laid in the second bed, but it was too soft.

Then he laid down in the third bed and it was just right. Stevilocks fell asleep.

As he was sleeping, the three Bairds came home.

PC Baird shouted ,"Someone's been sleeping in my bed"

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed, too" screamed CPC Baird.

"Someone's been sleeping in my bed and he's still there!" bellowed 'greenish' CPC Baird while pointing his finger indiscriminately.

Just then, Stevilocks woke up and saw the three Bairds and appointed the 'greenish' CPC Baird the Minister of the Environment. He jumped up, grabbed the 'greenish' CPC Baird and ran out of the room. Stevilocks and the 'greenish' CPC Bairds ran down the stairs, opened the door, and ran away into Stanley Park to throw 2 million dollars at the voters of Vancouver.

THE END?

Recommend this Post

Comparison of cancelled Liberal Programs to Rebranded Conservative Ones

Keep in mind that the Liberal policies were cancelled because the Conservative Government said they were ineffective without doing an audit. Here's the comparison.

On Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007, the Conservatives announced Research and Development for Clean Air Research.

Conservative Program
$230 Million

Cancelled Liberal Program
$200 Million

---------------------------------------------------------

On Friday, Jan. 19, 2007, the Conservative will announce funding for Renewable Energy Projects.

Conservative Program (Eco Energy Renewable Power Initiative)
$300 Million over 4 Years for Renewable Energy Projects - 4,000 KwH energy

Cancelled Liberal Program
$300 Million over 5 Years for Renewable Energy Projects - 4,500 KwH energy

This represents energy for 1.5 million homes.

---------------------------------------------------------

On Sunday, Jan. 21, 2007, the Conservatives will announce a revamped Energuide under a new name.

Conservative Program
Energuide relaunch under new name (without the final audit which ensures it was done properly)

Liberal Program (announced in 2005 budget)
continued and enhanced Energuide.

---------------------------------------------------------

So...

Exactly how ineffective were the Liberal Programs again?

I don't see really any difference, except nothing was in place for a year.

A year lost.

Can you see much difference? If so, I 'd like to hear about it.

Looks to me that they stole Mr. Dion's ideas. Recommend this Post

BT Circle Jerk

I noticed a poll at CTV.ca yesterday asking "Who do you think would do a better job of protecting the environment?" The numbers currently stand at

Conservatives 5625 votes (44 %)

Liberals 3216 votes (25 %)

NDP 2282 votes (18 %)

Other 1684 votes (13 %)

The poll itself is not strange but the results are. I later came across some blogs, all coincidentally were blogging tories, that were rallying other blogging tories to go and vote (who for I wonder). One blog even mentioned an email that was sent out to other blogging tories, and another had the audacity to proclaim

"First Brian Mulroney is the Greenest PM, and now this!!!!"

Besides throwing up a little in my mouth, I decided to venture over to the dark side, and sure enough they were all mutually masturbating, even fixating on some road kill to help get them off. To their credit they allow girls to take part as well. One blogger even stated that CTV will blame these results on a certain group of bloggers.

No shit. It doesn't take a genius to surf the web.

I had visions of people constantly deleting there caches to vote over and over again, maybe even visiting all their relatives to vote using their computers.

The sound of 5625 one hand claps is by no means deafening.

I thought to myself, do these people actually believe this?

Unfortunately they seem to have created another reality which explains a lot about the blogging tories and the CPC now that I think about it. Why would people think the CPC did anything on the environment or will? The announcements made so far by Harper this week are liberal policies, with some things missing. Later this week they will announce the renamed enerGuide, a program which has been in operation since 1998. Being a very popular program people will notice right away that this new one by the government is not new just missing inspectors. Who are they fooling?

Where were these bloggers for the last 8 years? I would imagine from such behavior that they were still being breast fed or in a snake hibernacula.

I have to say, though, their message is exactly the same as the party they support. Perception is everything, substance is not important. Why would a group of people who never believed in climate change think this PM is doing a great acting on climate change?

Maybe because he's actually doing nothing which they support(ed).

Unfortunately by rehashing the liberal parties policies one year later the governement has accomplished two things.

1) They now have policy,

2) They look like they are doing something (especially with the mistruths they told the voters about the liberal environmental plan)

3) They are not required to do much more (than liberals already had a year ago)

We lost one year that we will never get back and they cannot fix that with another party's policies or a stacked online poll.

Recommend this Post

Joshua, the Jericho Genocide and the Fallacy of Religious Morality

I read about this study and was quite shocked to hear how religious moral teachings can have a negative effect on children.

The story of Joshua (a false one) seems to promote the idea that genocide is appropriate in some situations if you believe that a god of some kind gives you permission to do so, or if you believe you are chosen and entitled to the land somone else lives on.

The results of the study speak for themselves. The study was conducted by George Tamarin, an Israeli psychologist, in 1966 and 1973.

The Israelites' campaign to carry out their god's commandment to commit genocide against the native inhabitants of Canaan-cum-Palestine took several generations. It began with Joshua's massacre at Jericho. Contrary to the Christian song "Joshua Fought the Battle of Jericho," according to scripture there was no battle at all. It was a siege, at the end of which all of the city's inhabitants were killed except Rahab the prostitute (she and her family were spared in exchange for helping Joshua plan his strategy, Joshua 6:16-17, 19, 21, 24, RSV):

Joshua said to the people, "Shout; for the LORD has given you the city. And the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction . . . But all silver and gold, and vessels of bronze and iron, are sacred to the LORD; they shall go into the treasury of the LORD." . . . Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword . . . And they burned the city with fire, and all within it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.

The half-life and penetrance of such cultural legacies are often under-appreciated. Some 3,000 years after the fall of Jericho, Israeli psychologist George Tamarin (1966, 1973) measured the strength of residual in-group morality. He presented Joshua 6:20-21 to 1,066 school children, ages 8-14, in order to test "the effect of uncritical teaching of the Bible on the propensity for forming prejudices (particularly the notion of the 'chosen people,' the superiority of the monotheistic religion, and the study of acts of genocide by biblical heroes)." The children's answers to the question "Do you think Joshua and the Israelites acted rightly or not?," were categorized as follows: "'A' means total approval, 'B' means partial approval or disapproval, and 'C' means total disapproval." Across a broad spectrum of Israeli social and economic classes, 66% of responses were "A," 8% "B," and 26% "C." The "A" answers tended to be as straightforward as they were numerous (Tamarin, 1966):

• In my opinion Joshua and the Sons of Israel acted well, and here are the reasons: God promised them this land, and gave them permission to conquer. If they would not have acted in this manner or killed anyone, then there would be the danger that the Sons of Israel would have assimilated among the "Goyim."
• In my opinion Joshua was right when he did it, one reason being that God commanded him to exterminate the people so that the tribes of Israel will not be able to assimilate amongst them and learn their bad ways.
• Joshua did good because the people who inhabited the land were of a different religion, and when Joshua killed them he wiped their religion from the earth.

Tamarin (1973) noted that:

"C" classification [total disapproval] was accorded to all answers formally rejecting genocide, either on ethical or utilitarian grounds. This does not mean that all "C" responses reveal non-discriminatory attitudes. For example, one girl criticized Joshua's act, stating that "the Sons of Israel learned many bad things from the Goyim." . . . Another extremely racist response is that of a 10 year old girl disapproving the act, stating, "I think it is not good, since the Arabs are impure and if one enters an impure land one will also become impure and share their curse."

Other misgivings included (1966):

• I think Joshua did not act well, as they could have spared the animals for themselves.
• I think Joshua did not act well, as he should have left the property of Jericho; if he had not destroyed the property it would have belonged to the Israelites.

In contrast to the established difference between boys and girls in propensity toward violence and approval of violence in general, with regard to biblically commanded genocide Tamarin found that "Contrary to our expectation, there was no difference, concerning this most cruel form of prejudice, between male and female examinees" (1973). Less surprising, but more alarming, nearly half of the children who gave "total approval" to Joshua's behavior also gave "A" responses to the hypothetical question: "Suppose that the Israeli Army conquers an Arab village in battle. Do you think it would be good or bad to act towards the inhabitants as Joshua did towards the people of Jericho?" Tamarin (1966) received such responses as these:

• In my opinion this behavior was necessary, as the Arabs are our enemies always, and the Jews did not have a country, and it was necessary to behave like that towards the Arabs.
• It would have been good to treat the Arabs as Joshua and his soldiers did, as they are Arabs; they hate and retaliate against us all the time, and if we exterminate them as Joshua did, they won't be able to show themselves as greater heroes than we.
• I think it was good because we want our enemies to be conquered, and to widen our frontiers, and we should kill the Arabs as Joshua and the Israelites did.

Some respondents disapproved of Joshua's campaign (answer "C"), but approved of similar acts if committed by Israeli soldiers. One girl disapproved of Joshua "because it is written in the Bible, 'don't kill'," but she approved of the conjectured Israeli Army action, stating "I think it would be good, as we want our enemies to fall into our hands, enlarge our frontiers, and kill the Arabs as Joshua did."

As a control group, Tamarin tested 168 children who were read Joshua 6:20-21 with "General Lin" substituted for Joshua and a "Chinese Kingdom 3000 years ago" substituted for Israel. General Lin got a 7% approval rating, with 18% giving partial approval or disapproval, and 75% disapproving totally.

What this study shows is that morality is not tied to religion but to an inate human abilty to be moral towards others. Religion in this case actually diminished the morality that children already have.

Those who promote religious morality often take pot shots at those who are not religious or agnostic/atheist as having no morals when it is quite obviously not so.

These types of parables are taught to children at a very young age when children are impressionable and they carry it throughout there lives.

Is this acceptable material for any child to be exposed to? Recommend this Post

Selected Passages from the God Delusion read by Richard Dawkins.

This guy never disappoints, his arguments and answers are always to the point, without waffle, and clearly understood. This man's a genius!

This book has to be the most well written text I have ever had the pleasure to read. With ease he illustrates the ridiculousness espoused by those who chose to believe in something that does not exist rather than believe in people.

This guy is quite a speaker and very funny!

Any argument past and present for the belief in a god are quashed and the flaws in all their arguments exposed for all to see (that is if you allow your self to see the truth). Topics covered are Einstein, the christain pantheon of gods, the polytheistic nature of judaism, origins of morality, and many many more..

There are two parts to these readings below. If you have read it, I welcome your comments on what you thought of this book.

WARNING: If you are a staunch believer of any religion do not watch, it will hurt.

Part 1



Part 2


Previous post on Dawkins:

Root of All Evil Part 2: The Virus of Faith
- covers the negative effects indoctrination of children
Recommend this Post

The Tragic Lives of Pablo & Aaron

Pablo and Aaron are two friends that I had the extreme privilege of knowing. Two people who did not know each other, separated by geography, language and culture. Two lives that that in the end were cut short tragically in the same way. Lives made harder and lonelier through idiotic notions of family, the role of those in them and how people should live their lives.

Pablo

I met Pablo while living in Central America, we both worked at the same Sports book. Pablo was an only child. His mother took ill with cancer and his father, having no one to take care of the home due to her illness, moved on with another women while his wife was on her deathbed. Pablo was left to support and care for his mother, at the age of 16, until she died. Upon her death, his father returned home and kicked him out on the streets. He was baggage when it came to his father's new family.

Pablo worked hard and managed to make a decent living, acquired a piece of property but the pain of rejection by his only parent haunted him. He tended to keep to himself and had difficulty in trusting anyone. He tried many times to connect with his dad but was met with indifference.

We became great friends quickly. He never had anyone he could trust or rely on until me. He would hang out with me, even going to gay bars with me, though he was straight. I, in turn, would go with him to college bars with him. He never judged me and I never judged him. We were both people trying to survive and enjoy the lives we had. It was extremely painful for both of us when I had to return to Canada to complete my education. I didn't know it would be the last time I would ever see him. Secretly he did.

I received a phone call 3 months later while in university.

Aaron

Aaron was from my home town. We never quite knew each other well growing up; he was a metal head and a loner. I was an outcast but in a different way. Aaron's parents never approved of his "look" or his taste in "Satan" music. They tolerated him until they could legally kick him out.

We got to know each other suddenly when his girlfriend left him and started calling me. Though I was gay, I welcomed her attention because I was supposed to date girls. She was an extremely attractive girl who originally came from Ontario, adding to her exoticness I guess. He had a hard time letting go. Though things never got violent between us, we were never on good terms.

I grew up and left. Aaron eventually ended up on the streets.

Years later I was home and Aaron was at a bar I was at one night, coincidentally with a girl I use to date and now he did.

We made contact and I apologized for any grief I had caused. He actually had no ill will against me. We talked a bit and realized we had a lot in common and we both expressed how we could have been great friends if we had met under different circumstances or at least talked instead of staring each other down. I told him I was gay. He said "so what". At which point we became great friends. I found out that he had successfully beaten brain cancer, just a year before. I was shocked he someone so young would have to deal with this. What sickened me was he fought it alone since his parents had disowned him. We hung out for months. I had to return to university and we promised to keep in touch. We did for awhile. I would see him around from time to time when our paths crossed. No matter how long we went between seeing each other it was always like it was just yesterday. He relocated to a very small town with his girlfriend. A couple years went by.

I received a phone call last Thursday.

Pablo and Aaron

Pablo and Aaron, two unconnected people separated by geography, culture, and language, joined only by friendship with me and a blank slate when it comes to what people should be, both died suddenly of brain cancer. They died alone without their families who didn't even have the decency to claim the body, leaving it to strangers and friends.

Pablo left me his property which I sold and donated the proceeds in his name to a brain cancer survivors fund in his native country.

I miss you guys. Recommend this Post

Is John Baird still Anti-Kyoto?

John Baird is on record to have delivered a speech to the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions (CCRES), a front group for the worst polluters in Canada. These people are reponsible for the concept of a Made in Canada Plan.

Legislative House of Asembly comments (under Kyoto Protocol)

"he references to not buying in, presumably because we want a made-in-Canada solution, well, that's exactly what Kyoto's going to be, a made-in-Canada solution. We made references in some of the ministry's own reports on the quality of air and on climate change, about working co-operatively to implement Kyoto.

A week or so ago we had this meeting downstairs with this Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions. I and a graduate student who works out of my office went down, quite excited about having some opportunity to dialogue, and we kept eating these little shrimpy things and drinking the wine and such and talking to some really nice folk, waiting for the dialogue to break out. But you know what happened? No dialogue broke out; in fact, we had Minister Baird stand up and give a brief set of comments where he said, "You know, we don't want to rush into things. We want to make sure we have full discussion and debate before we do something."

John Baird's speech was given while he was in the ill-fated Ernie Eves Conservative Government here in Ontario.

Ernie Eves and Made in Canada Plan from Legislative House of Asembly comments (under Kyoto Protocol)

Hon Mr Eves: We agree that you have to act and act now. We have been acting and we will continue to act. Indeed, as the member of the official opposition has pointed out, many private enterprises are already doing this. We should be acting, as Ontarians and as Canadians, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

That is not the subject of debate here. The subject of debate is, is the best way to do it the highly technical interpretation of the Kyoto accord? By everybody's admission -- even the Prime Minister of Canada's -- except for the leader of the official opposition, it's unworkable in its current form. We have to find a made-in-Canada solution to lead the way in greenhouse gas reductions while at the same time protecting, in fact I would argue creating, hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Who in turn supported Ralph Klein's view on the protocol and a Made in Canada Plan

Ralph's take:

The Kyoto Protocol is his version of the hated National Energy Program, which was imposed on Alberta by the Trudeau government.

"I think the decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol doesn't concern you? Think again. Skyrocketing fuel and utility prices, tax hikes and lost jobs are consequences that affect all Canadians. There is a better way. We need a made in Canada solution. We can balance emission reductions with continued prosperity."

Legislative House of Asembly comments about Ralph and Ernie (under Kyoto Protocol)

I have a question for the Premier. It is reported that Ralph Klein is seeking a meeting with you, when he comes to Ontario, to try to discredit the Kyoto Protocol. I was Minister of the Environment when Ralph Klein was environment minister in Alberta. No one took the man seriously; he has spent his entire political career fighting every significant environmental program that would benefit our nation. He is considered to be nothing less than an environmental Neanderthal and a shill for business interests who oppose environmental improvement.

You have a choice, Premier (Eves): you can either enter a coalition with Ralph Klein and stand side by side with the oil barons and their cohorts who are spending millions of dollars to sabotage an international agreement that will meet the threat of global warming, or you can lead Ontario toward cleaner air and improved health.

And now since taking office Harper and his crew have resurrected the concept of a Made in Canada plan.

The phrase “made in Canada” caught on, and it is now experiencing a renaissance. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, (with the co-operation of major news organizations) have resurrected the phrase to describe new plans to deal with climate change, which involve cutting 80 percent of the budget for Kyoto, axing almost all of the Liberals’ global-warming programs, and shutting down the federal climate change site.

The text of the speech from John Bairds shmoozing with the CCRES is not available as it was a private event. Their was one person though who got in and the now magazine article originally posted by blogger Section 15 was the result. The notes on the speech, though do exist, and are in storage. These notes will surface very soon as their have been MANY requests for them.

Though Mr. Baird in the past has snubbed Kyoto, his actions now will speak for his views today. Though in light of this he has a lot more convincing to do on his commital to the protocol.

I fear though that this past will result in him only doing enough to make people think he's sincere on the environment.

I question the logic of Mr. Harper putting this person in the Environmental portfolio seeing Rona Ambrose didn't have this kind of baggage.

It does make me question, as well, Harper's stance on the Cabinent shuffle being about substance, not optics. I would tend to believe the opposite, especially with Bairds way of "discussing" in Parliament.

Prove me wrong Mr. Baird.

Hopefully more to come... Recommend this Post

Baird and his Anti-Kyoto speech from 2002

Blogger Section 15 has a geat post on an Anti-Kyoto speech made by John Baird.

From Now Magazine 2002:

Some of Ernie Eves's top cabinet ministers partied last week with Kyoto-bashers the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions, a lobby group with close ties to both Ralph Klein and the energy industry.And through a combo of stealth and strategy, I managed to crash the soiree.

It took place in the Queen's Park dining hall and was a very chummy shrimp-and-wine gathering, a chance for members of the coalition -- the Canadian Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, etc -- to schmooze Tory heavies.

There were speeches by coalition organizers, and a particularly passionate Ontario energy minister, John Baird, made his anti-Kyoto rallying cry. Needless to say, the audience was very receptive. Baird's parliamentary assistant, Scarborough MPP Steve Gilchrist, who at one time helped block developers' plans for the Oak Ridges Moraine, was busy propping open doors with chairs to give relief to a very hot and stuffy room.

...Two days after the meeting, Giorno sent every MPP at Queen's Park an e-mail suggesting what they might say in op-ed news pieces or letters to their constituents about Kyoto.

Then Liberal and NDP members, for whom the missive was obviously not intended, were sent a second e-mail that read, "Unfortunately, materials from the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions were sent to your office in error in a previous e-mail. I do apologize for any inconvenience."

Wow. This is much much worse than Rona. She only did what she was told. Baird is on record as supporting a similar view to Harper's.

All we can expect is whats in the photo above. Finger pointing and yelling.

Sheesh.

Recommend this Post

Conservative Promise Made, Promise Broken

Despite promising before the election a year ago to create 25,000 spots within 12 months, not one childcare space has been created.

There are 7,000 people on the waiting list in Ottawa alone. Around 80% of children do not have access.

Harper said he would create 125,000 spaces over 5 years.

Not a great start.

Just because the Liberals only got around to childcare in its last year doesn't mean they can wait 12 more.

Starting to become a theme with this government. We don't have to do it because the Liberals didn't do it/get a chance to finish it. Not to mention the fact that they have distorted the record of the former government through lies about effectiveness of the energuide and one tonne challenge.

New Government indeed.

Its tired and old already.

Election anyone? Recommend this Post

Did Harper lie about effectiveness of Liberal Climate Change Program?

Harper is on record saying that:

"We can't tell the Canadian population to heat its homes one-third less of the time."

Well now, seeing that households make up 25% of the greenhouse gases and industry is responsible for 75% of the greenhouse gases, why did he chose to speak only to households? Is it his wallet he's worried about if he should tackle the major cause of the problem, industry?

Besides, the Liberal Programs appear to be effective according to U.K. Officials who intend on delivery their report to Harpers doorstep . So if the Liberals manged to get homes to reduce, why is Harper saying its not possible?

"EnerGuide for houses, actually averaged a 35 per cent energy reduction on residential heating costs".

and

''In fact, the Canadian government was helping Canadians reduce their energy bills by one-third, and they were doing it on a daily basis, and (Harper) cancelled the program.''

At least someone did the accounting.

Too bad the Conservatives never before slashing them, saying they were ineffective without even auditing. So if you didn't do the audit, why kill them?

Oh yeah, can't have anything effective in operation if it came from a Liberal. Recommend this Post

Great Climate Change Commercial from the WWF

Sums up pretty much what to expect if people don't start taking this issue as seriously as the problem will be.

Visit the site, sign the petition and then visit the blog to leave some comments for the naysaying neo-con trolls (proof the CPC and its members are not serious about climate change).

saveourclimate.ca Recommend this Post

Latest Environics Poll results

The latest Environics poll was released on Politics with Don Newman.

The results are:

Canada Overall

Con 34
Lib 32
NDP 14
Green 11
Bloc 8

Atlantic Canada

Con 32

Lib 33

NDP 26
Green 9

Quebec

Con 18

Lib 24

NDP 12

Green 8
Bloc 36

Ontario

Con 36

Lib 39

NDP 12
Green 12

Manitoba

Con 38

Lib 34

NDP 19
Green 8

Saskatchewan

Con 40

Lib 26

NDP 23
Green 10

Alberta

Con 60

Lib 16

NDP 11
Green 14

British Columbia

Con 36

Lib 35

NDP 17
Green 11

Who would make best Prime Minister?

Harper 34
Dion/Graham 23
Layton 16

Recommend this Post

Did Khan switch for his own personal business interests and his bigoted views on homosexuals?

Khan says

" Liberal party is shifting away from the principles of free enterprise, family values and Canada’s role in the world that are most important to him."

What Khan actually means is that he has a mazda dealership and cuts to greenhouse gases will impact his own personal bank account if carbon taxes are added to fuel and he does not approve of homosexuality, especially SSM which he has voted against.

Good riddance, this guy wasn't a liberal, he was riding the coat tails for purely personal reasons (he couldn't get elected as a Neo-Con). His riding voted in a liberal who would hold up liberal values.

He's toast like Emerson.

Kudos to our next PM, Mr. Dion for cleaning up that mess.

On a personal note, I know Mr Khan and have interacted with him several times. He's a buffoon who doesn't understand climate change and his relusion with regard to social justice has no place in our party.

Recommend this Post