1)The real question to ask politicians is how are gas prices a crisis or a problem? The second one is if the price of gas is a problem, what do you propose to do to reduce it? If the answer to the first question is yes, they should be coming up with ways to reduce the price of gas and oil. If the answers are inconsistent in the sense that things are being proposed that on the other hand will increase oil and gas prices, like carbon emission reductions and things like this, then you have to wonder about their real good offices and good faith and consistency and lack of hypocrisy.
You cannot be for both things at the same time. You can be for low gas prices and be for carbon emission control. Anyone who says they can is lying or stupid.
I have no problem with being honest in saying that someone may want higher gas prices and carbon emission controls. But I do have a problem with someone who pretends that they can be for both things at the same time.
May left wing politicians, especially Mr. Layton, act like they are for both. Mrs. Clinton is another.
Want to use wheat to make paper instead of cutting down trees? Oh no! The price of wheat is up too.
The idea of using wheat paper or ethanol is more soothing to the conscience of some people than the thought of feeding people. Cutting trees is bad. Too bad there’s not enough food. If it’s the chaff of the wheat being used, it’s too bad reporters aren’t pointing that out. Especially on the CBC.
2)Randy Cross pointed out that in his opinion most of the guys on the American Idol stage couldn’t sing. Not a bad voice, but no strength. They didn’t have the voice necessary to carry a career. They have everything and they look good, but they can’t get out there and prove themselves without the support of the show.
I thought I was alone in thinking the same thing.
3)Herouxville occurred spontaneously. A town counsel of its own volition issued a statement requiring people to obey certain rules when they came to Quebec and giving instructions to immigrants about how to behave. That wasn’t a concoction of the media.
Blaming the media, as the Reasonable Accommodations Commission did in Quebec seems to be the result of legitimate concerns and in some cases irrational ones that were simply reported by the press. The treatment of the press by the Bouchard-Taylor Commission suggests to me that another chapter in the sorry story of the blaming of the media by political and academic elites, especially if the media reports things that are inconvenient, ugly and troubling and don’t fit in with the political elite’s perception of how society should be. If there is any better example of this trend, it is the complaints against Ezra Levant and McLean’s by the Human Rights Commissions of Alberta, BC and Canada. This is a chilling thing that can only have the effect of freezing investigations of things that are bad that the government is doing or things that are bad that people are doing.
This is an unwelcome part of the well-meaning Commission’s work.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Friday, June 13, 2008
June 13, 2008
-The problem with the NDP is that they can never confront the reality of their own policies. A perfect example is carbon tax.
The NDP is faced with the problem of deciding how to attack it. Perhaps because they wanted the companies to pay for it, not the consumer.
If you believe in global warming, you believe carbon emissions are a bad thing. The best way to attack it is to attack the consumer’s comsumption of carbon emissions. The emission of carbon is based on consumption. A carbon tax is the most pervasive way to attack that emission.
The NDP has never found reality to be a strong suit.
-The health care wait time insurance that is being proposed in BC is very exciting. The CBC reporter that was covering it could not help question whether it was legal. Typical Canadian.
I have to admit that between provinces, such insurance might run into legalities, depending on whether the provinces bother to enforce the Canada Health Care Act. Any number of provinces don’t, including Quebec, Alberta and BC where there are private clinics. Manitoba has them too.
We all know about the hypocrisy and stupidity of the system. This health care wait time insurance is the best example yet of how dysfunctional our system is and how lots of us are in denial about it.
It’s a great idea: you pay $1,300.00 a year and your whole family gets up to $5 million in insurance for health care provision outside of your province. I have to say that I have no idea how anyone will be able to stop a company from selling insurance to people to get health care outside the country. If the proceeds are used to pay for the health care of a person in the US, for instance, and the claim isn’t made against a health ministry in any province, what does the government of Canada or any province have to do with that? Nothing.
Frankly, I think you may see more of these sorts of approaches without euphemistic titles. One day, I suspect you’ll see global health insurance, like travel insurance.
If the choice is between waiting for the system to become more rational and attack the wait times problems and getting a guarantee you won’t have to wait more than 21 days for a procedure through affordable health care insurance, it’s obvious what the choice is going to be for most people who can afford it. At $1,300.00 a year, it will be affordable to an enormous segment of Canadian society.
-Bill C-38, the bill to mandate 5% ethanol content in fuel, is nothing more than a farm aid bill. That’s why it’s supported by the two parties with the most farmers in their caucuses: the Liberals and the Conservatives. For them to wrap themselves in the flag and fuel independence and global warming while we see corn riots going on in Mexico is obscene.
We should be ashamed as a party. And those members of our caucus who represent consumers (and which one doesn’t?) should vote against this.
-Raw sewage was pumped into the Ottawa River from Aylmer. I know this because the sailing launch that my dad used for sailing was only a few yards away from the bubbling outlet in the river. My father and the rest of us had to make sure we showered after sailing so that we did not get any poisonous material on our bodies from the dirty water.
The Ontario side did not do this. How is it that Aylmer was able to do this without attracting the attention of Environment Canada? After all, that raw sewage didn’t just stay on the Quebec side. It almost certainly affected the Ontario side. Therefore, an effluent over interprovincial boundaries becomes a federal matter and concern.
There is the double irony of the fact that it was occurring at the doorstep of Parliament and other federal installations. I’m sure some of them contributed to it. Why didn’t Ottawa intervene?
The answers appear unattractive, but it raises the question as to why the federal government could not intervene and stop this sort of activity either through penalties or through court orders. It’s certainly an example of the double standard that some governments are held to in this country with regards to issues like the environment and the lackaday attitude of the federal government to environment issues. The US federal government and the all-powerful EPA appear in stark contrast.
Where is our superfund to clean up REAL pollution? We don’t have one. And we don’t have an EPA with real power. That might not be such a bad thing. The EPA has been known to overreach. But we have raw sewage being pumped out in this country. Someone need to control and stop this.
The NDP is faced with the problem of deciding how to attack it. Perhaps because they wanted the companies to pay for it, not the consumer.
If you believe in global warming, you believe carbon emissions are a bad thing. The best way to attack it is to attack the consumer’s comsumption of carbon emissions. The emission of carbon is based on consumption. A carbon tax is the most pervasive way to attack that emission.
The NDP has never found reality to be a strong suit.
-The health care wait time insurance that is being proposed in BC is very exciting. The CBC reporter that was covering it could not help question whether it was legal. Typical Canadian.
I have to admit that between provinces, such insurance might run into legalities, depending on whether the provinces bother to enforce the Canada Health Care Act. Any number of provinces don’t, including Quebec, Alberta and BC where there are private clinics. Manitoba has them too.
We all know about the hypocrisy and stupidity of the system. This health care wait time insurance is the best example yet of how dysfunctional our system is and how lots of us are in denial about it.
It’s a great idea: you pay $1,300.00 a year and your whole family gets up to $5 million in insurance for health care provision outside of your province. I have to say that I have no idea how anyone will be able to stop a company from selling insurance to people to get health care outside the country. If the proceeds are used to pay for the health care of a person in the US, for instance, and the claim isn’t made against a health ministry in any province, what does the government of Canada or any province have to do with that? Nothing.
Frankly, I think you may see more of these sorts of approaches without euphemistic titles. One day, I suspect you’ll see global health insurance, like travel insurance.
If the choice is between waiting for the system to become more rational and attack the wait times problems and getting a guarantee you won’t have to wait more than 21 days for a procedure through affordable health care insurance, it’s obvious what the choice is going to be for most people who can afford it. At $1,300.00 a year, it will be affordable to an enormous segment of Canadian society.
-Bill C-38, the bill to mandate 5% ethanol content in fuel, is nothing more than a farm aid bill. That’s why it’s supported by the two parties with the most farmers in their caucuses: the Liberals and the Conservatives. For them to wrap themselves in the flag and fuel independence and global warming while we see corn riots going on in Mexico is obscene.
We should be ashamed as a party. And those members of our caucus who represent consumers (and which one doesn’t?) should vote against this.
-Raw sewage was pumped into the Ottawa River from Aylmer. I know this because the sailing launch that my dad used for sailing was only a few yards away from the bubbling outlet in the river. My father and the rest of us had to make sure we showered after sailing so that we did not get any poisonous material on our bodies from the dirty water.
The Ontario side did not do this. How is it that Aylmer was able to do this without attracting the attention of Environment Canada? After all, that raw sewage didn’t just stay on the Quebec side. It almost certainly affected the Ontario side. Therefore, an effluent over interprovincial boundaries becomes a federal matter and concern.
There is the double irony of the fact that it was occurring at the doorstep of Parliament and other federal installations. I’m sure some of them contributed to it. Why didn’t Ottawa intervene?
The answers appear unattractive, but it raises the question as to why the federal government could not intervene and stop this sort of activity either through penalties or through court orders. It’s certainly an example of the double standard that some governments are held to in this country with regards to issues like the environment and the lackaday attitude of the federal government to environment issues. The US federal government and the all-powerful EPA appear in stark contrast.
Where is our superfund to clean up REAL pollution? We don’t have one. And we don’t have an EPA with real power. That might not be such a bad thing. The EPA has been known to overreach. But we have raw sewage being pumped out in this country. Someone need to control and stop this.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
June 11, 2008
-- If the Warner/McCain/Lieberman bill for cap-and-trade is adopted for carbon emission control, you will see lobbying expand exponentially such that it won’t be K Street by the year 2050 where the lobbyists live. It’ll be A to Z Streets. You can be sure that the average working Americans, those who create and produce, will be the last people who will have attention paid to them.
-- It is incredibly ironic and eerie that two years ago, the television series West Wing had its swan song by having a presidential race between two candidates. One was a Republican moderate who was in his 70’s but had certainly intellectual conservative positions but was moderate on social issues (and anti-ethanol, by the way). The other was a Democrat from a visible minority who, while not really a moderate and broadly liberal, was cunning, crafty and was able to be moderate enough, especially given his military background, to convince the population that he was not a traditional liberal.
Except for the military background, the Democrat on offer this year is exactly the same and has many of the same charismatic and attractive features as Jimmy Smits’ character in West Wing. The Republican, who was played by Alan Alda, is almost completely aped by John McCain. One hopes that the twist ending where the Republican loses what appears to be a sure victory because he is found to have lobbied hard for a nuclear plant in his home state that has an accident, won’t be caught by a similar October surprise when he’s running against Obama. In the tv series, they were replacing a Democrat who was relatively popular. In real life, they’re replacing a Republican who is one of the least popular exiting two-term presidents in history. Certainly, John McCain might only wish that the only problem he had was a far-fetched deus ex machina accident. I wonder if anyone’s noted the remarkable similarities on a blog somewhere.
-- I think for the first time in his campaign, Mr. Obama might have ended a speech at the right time. I don’t know what he’s talking about when he says that this was the moment we got jobs for the jobless. There’s 5% unemployment right now. I do give him credit for not bothering to mention that he is the first African-American candidate. It would have been unseemly for him to do so. He showed a surer touch for what needed to be said or done. He acted like a gentleman. Hillary did not.
-- I saw two windmill blades being carried on large flat-bed trucks on the highway. I wondered what they were. I figured it out because of one of these jumped-up energy commercials.
-- If everyone is good, then no one is good. The invasion of Poland by the Nazis cannot be compared to the invasion of Iraq by the US. This sort of relativism cannot continue.
-- If I see one more picture of Mr. Bernier going to Rideau Hall with Ms. Couillard in her now-famous dress I will spit.
-Now is the time for Mr. Obama to prove to us that he is capable of the leadership and daring that he cut himself out as having in his earlier campaign. He has three opportunities. He has the chance to denounce the likes of Rev. Wright and the statements made in the past that were problematic. I don’t know how Obama is going to get that opportunity back.
He could have asked for a re-do in Florida and Michigan, but that’s not going to happen now. It would have made everyone forget about everything. I never believed it was impossible for him to consider, but others felt differently. There is karma in politics. People understand courage and daring. It would have been brilliant. Even if he had lost, he would have still won the nomination.
The last opportunity for glory is to offer the running-mate position to Mrs. Clinton. There are two possible results. One is that she refuses. But he would have offered it up and that would be clear to everyone. She would have had her chance. It would be a stunning event like the Kennedy-Johnson ticket of 1960. Obama would be a unifying figure Most of her supporters would come over. It would prove he can work with other camps.
If she accepts the benefits are incalculable. Republicans would jump. There are also negatives that they’ll try to play on. Like Bill Clinton and his role in an Obama-Clinton administration. Like Mrs. Clinton being untrustworthy and the anathema of what Mr. Obama stands for. But Obama will have shown himself to be the ultimate ideal of the sort of politician he says he is. It will be hard for the Republicans to hold off the Democrats in swing states.
-- It is incredibly ironic and eerie that two years ago, the television series West Wing had its swan song by having a presidential race between two candidates. One was a Republican moderate who was in his 70’s but had certainly intellectual conservative positions but was moderate on social issues (and anti-ethanol, by the way). The other was a Democrat from a visible minority who, while not really a moderate and broadly liberal, was cunning, crafty and was able to be moderate enough, especially given his military background, to convince the population that he was not a traditional liberal.
Except for the military background, the Democrat on offer this year is exactly the same and has many of the same charismatic and attractive features as Jimmy Smits’ character in West Wing. The Republican, who was played by Alan Alda, is almost completely aped by John McCain. One hopes that the twist ending where the Republican loses what appears to be a sure victory because he is found to have lobbied hard for a nuclear plant in his home state that has an accident, won’t be caught by a similar October surprise when he’s running against Obama. In the tv series, they were replacing a Democrat who was relatively popular. In real life, they’re replacing a Republican who is one of the least popular exiting two-term presidents in history. Certainly, John McCain might only wish that the only problem he had was a far-fetched deus ex machina accident. I wonder if anyone’s noted the remarkable similarities on a blog somewhere.
-- I think for the first time in his campaign, Mr. Obama might have ended a speech at the right time. I don’t know what he’s talking about when he says that this was the moment we got jobs for the jobless. There’s 5% unemployment right now. I do give him credit for not bothering to mention that he is the first African-American candidate. It would have been unseemly for him to do so. He showed a surer touch for what needed to be said or done. He acted like a gentleman. Hillary did not.
-- I saw two windmill blades being carried on large flat-bed trucks on the highway. I wondered what they were. I figured it out because of one of these jumped-up energy commercials.
-- If everyone is good, then no one is good. The invasion of Poland by the Nazis cannot be compared to the invasion of Iraq by the US. This sort of relativism cannot continue.
-- If I see one more picture of Mr. Bernier going to Rideau Hall with Ms. Couillard in her now-famous dress I will spit.
-Now is the time for Mr. Obama to prove to us that he is capable of the leadership and daring that he cut himself out as having in his earlier campaign. He has three opportunities. He has the chance to denounce the likes of Rev. Wright and the statements made in the past that were problematic. I don’t know how Obama is going to get that opportunity back.
He could have asked for a re-do in Florida and Michigan, but that’s not going to happen now. It would have made everyone forget about everything. I never believed it was impossible for him to consider, but others felt differently. There is karma in politics. People understand courage and daring. It would have been brilliant. Even if he had lost, he would have still won the nomination.
The last opportunity for glory is to offer the running-mate position to Mrs. Clinton. There are two possible results. One is that she refuses. But he would have offered it up and that would be clear to everyone. She would have had her chance. It would be a stunning event like the Kennedy-Johnson ticket of 1960. Obama would be a unifying figure Most of her supporters would come over. It would prove he can work with other camps.
If she accepts the benefits are incalculable. Republicans would jump. There are also negatives that they’ll try to play on. Like Bill Clinton and his role in an Obama-Clinton administration. Like Mrs. Clinton being untrustworthy and the anathema of what Mr. Obama stands for. But Obama will have shown himself to be the ultimate ideal of the sort of politician he says he is. It will be hard for the Republicans to hold off the Democrats in swing states.
Friday, June 6, 2008
JUNE 6, 2008
One of the very interesting things I found in the "1215" book I’m reading is about the Church’s interdict of 1208 that lasted until 1214 under Innocent III. The church bells were ordered not to ring in England.
One is reminded of the much later and milder winter of discontent of 1979. In England, no one was buried during those years.
*****
My idea for a primary election: start with the smallest state by population and go upwards from there until the last state, California, number 1 in population, is the last one to hold a primary. It would be exciting and a great build-up. It would also mean that little candidates could hang in there longer and would not be as crushed by defeats. Who’s going to get excited if Hillary Clinton loses Delaware? By March, we’d start moving into Wisconsin and Minnesota, some of the middling states. It’ll be harder for someone to be completely destroyed when they know that New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, California and New York are still coming.
*****
Why are oil and energy the only industries where, we have decided, that what the people who run it every day and work in it and manage it and develop it and make profits from it, do, say and think about this are somehow wrong and we know everything that they don’t? What makes this the one industry where we know better than the people who are professionals in it?
We don’t do this for automotive, construction, food production and distribution or the law or medecine.
In 1960, American direct access to oil reserves was 85%. Now it’s 7%. The total demand for oil is 86 million barrels a day now. In about 30 years, it’s going to be 120 million barrels.
The CEO of Coneco-Phillips spoke recently in Alberta and said that right now, we provide 20% of the US’s oil. In about 20 or 30 years it will be about 50-60%. It’s important that we know that people like Jeffrey Simpson, who believes that eventually we won’t be able to sell oil to the US, might be wrong.
One is reminded of the much later and milder winter of discontent of 1979. In England, no one was buried during those years.
*****
My idea for a primary election: start with the smallest state by population and go upwards from there until the last state, California, number 1 in population, is the last one to hold a primary. It would be exciting and a great build-up. It would also mean that little candidates could hang in there longer and would not be as crushed by defeats. Who’s going to get excited if Hillary Clinton loses Delaware? By March, we’d start moving into Wisconsin and Minnesota, some of the middling states. It’ll be harder for someone to be completely destroyed when they know that New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, California and New York are still coming.
*****
Why are oil and energy the only industries where, we have decided, that what the people who run it every day and work in it and manage it and develop it and make profits from it, do, say and think about this are somehow wrong and we know everything that they don’t? What makes this the one industry where we know better than the people who are professionals in it?
We don’t do this for automotive, construction, food production and distribution or the law or medecine.
In 1960, American direct access to oil reserves was 85%. Now it’s 7%. The total demand for oil is 86 million barrels a day now. In about 30 years, it’s going to be 120 million barrels.
The CEO of Coneco-Phillips spoke recently in Alberta and said that right now, we provide 20% of the US’s oil. In about 20 or 30 years it will be about 50-60%. It’s important that we know that people like Jeffrey Simpson, who believes that eventually we won’t be able to sell oil to the US, might be wrong.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Keeping Abreast of Things
John Bitove, who is the KFC Canada CEO, sent a letter to Pamela Anderson, a vegetarian acting on behalf of PETA, in response to her concerns about their cruel chicken preparation practices.
His letter invited her to come for eats at one of his KFCs, reminded her of the facts as they company found them, and promising to keep her "abreast" of any developments.
For that letter, he deserves the continued KFC cruelty picketing they got until they recently settled with PETA.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less if my KFC was beheaded or gassed as long as it’s greasy and crisp. The same doesn’t go for Ms. Anderson being "abreast".
*****
The Stanley Cup is the redwood of sports trophies. It keeps growing every year and you can literally mark certain periods or eras in history just be seeing where you are on the Cup.
*****
The average auto worker makes, under the latest agreement, $67.00 an hour. That’s about $134,000.00 a year. It’s 30% more than the average non-unionized non-American car plant worker. In rejecting a demand to simply get closer to that level, CAW said it wouldn’t be compared to non-unionized car workers, even if they were working in the US and Canada. And they wonder why jobs and plants are moving away.
Those workers now make as much as hour as a legal aid lawyer made in the 1990’s.
*****
How the setting up of another speculative market can be justified is beyond me. Food, oil and metals are all up. Carbon’s next. There won’t just be a cap-and-trade market, but eventually there will be speculative markets on cap-and-trade. The price of carbon might just go through the roof.
Ironically, the government will benefit from that speculation.
*****
It’s always amusing when one is confronted with a story that makes the politically correct, especially the CBC, wonder where to turn. How about the Endangers Species Act "threatened" statement regarding the polar bears of the US? The Bogey Man comes back again. Now, it’s harming the hunting of Inuit by bringing in the plan to protect the threatened polar bear.
On the other hand, I thought the hunters and the souvenir grabbers were the real problem. They’re the ones insensitive to the shrinking ice that is causing the decline of species like the polar bear. Normally, should we not be exalting the US as protecting an endangered species?
It’s hard to know how to be consistent intellectually on these things. I think the Endangered Species Act is scam and a boondoggle which has harmed the more important species (humans) many times over. It’s done very little to help animals. Certainly not those who rely on some sort of species control so they can live as well. It’s also harmed the living of all sorts of Northwestern economic activities in the US.
Now, we Canadians are getting a taste of the tyranny of this regime. AT the same time, we can’t help but enjoy the irony that the exaggerated and threatened state of the polar bear (some populations are indeed growing, especially in Russia) is non-existent as is the ridiculous global warming theory.
This is the result. The Inuit, who are simply trying to pursue their usual way of life to earn what money they can from US tourists, are harmed.
*****
McCain campaign slogan: Don’t go back to the past. Who wants another Carter term?
*****
Indiana Jones is only old for those too young to remember it the first time.
His letter invited her to come for eats at one of his KFCs, reminded her of the facts as they company found them, and promising to keep her "abreast" of any developments.
For that letter, he deserves the continued KFC cruelty picketing they got until they recently settled with PETA.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less if my KFC was beheaded or gassed as long as it’s greasy and crisp. The same doesn’t go for Ms. Anderson being "abreast".
*****
The Stanley Cup is the redwood of sports trophies. It keeps growing every year and you can literally mark certain periods or eras in history just be seeing where you are on the Cup.
*****
The average auto worker makes, under the latest agreement, $67.00 an hour. That’s about $134,000.00 a year. It’s 30% more than the average non-unionized non-American car plant worker. In rejecting a demand to simply get closer to that level, CAW said it wouldn’t be compared to non-unionized car workers, even if they were working in the US and Canada. And they wonder why jobs and plants are moving away.
Those workers now make as much as hour as a legal aid lawyer made in the 1990’s.
*****
How the setting up of another speculative market can be justified is beyond me. Food, oil and metals are all up. Carbon’s next. There won’t just be a cap-and-trade market, but eventually there will be speculative markets on cap-and-trade. The price of carbon might just go through the roof.
Ironically, the government will benefit from that speculation.
*****
It’s always amusing when one is confronted with a story that makes the politically correct, especially the CBC, wonder where to turn. How about the Endangers Species Act "threatened" statement regarding the polar bears of the US? The Bogey Man comes back again. Now, it’s harming the hunting of Inuit by bringing in the plan to protect the threatened polar bear.
On the other hand, I thought the hunters and the souvenir grabbers were the real problem. They’re the ones insensitive to the shrinking ice that is causing the decline of species like the polar bear. Normally, should we not be exalting the US as protecting an endangered species?
It’s hard to know how to be consistent intellectually on these things. I think the Endangered Species Act is scam and a boondoggle which has harmed the more important species (humans) many times over. It’s done very little to help animals. Certainly not those who rely on some sort of species control so they can live as well. It’s also harmed the living of all sorts of Northwestern economic activities in the US.
Now, we Canadians are getting a taste of the tyranny of this regime. AT the same time, we can’t help but enjoy the irony that the exaggerated and threatened state of the polar bear (some populations are indeed growing, especially in Russia) is non-existent as is the ridiculous global warming theory.
This is the result. The Inuit, who are simply trying to pursue their usual way of life to earn what money they can from US tourists, are harmed.
*****
McCain campaign slogan: Don’t go back to the past. Who wants another Carter term?
*****
Indiana Jones is only old for those too young to remember it the first time.
June 4, 2008
I was sad to learn that Bill Shatner is a Malthusian. He believes that overpopulation is the core of all of our problems. How sad. After all, his own career is proof of the possibility of the human being.
In the many ways he makes money, in everything from bran cereal to cheap airplane tickets to pulp sci-fi suggest that he’s not doing so badly from overpopulation.
I can’t believe that the philosophy of Gene Rodenberry was about there being too many people. A man that is so full of joy and vigor like Shatner who has time and time again proven pessimists wrong in his career would have such a glum view of the world and its prospects.
We are better off then we ever have been. Certainly we’re better off than when young Bill Shatner tried to go to McGill on a Jewish quota.
James Kunstler in his book "A World Made By Hand" is another one of these backwards thinkers. We make more oil than ever. We are not past our peak. The bottom line is that China is supposed to be an economic superpower by 2050. How is that going to happen if there is no more oil? Both things can’t happen. There is going to be enough oil for everyone. It’s just a matter of unplugging the taps, and that’s going to happen as well as people realize that the luddite view that we’ve peaked and are now declining is as legitimate a belief as that that the shape of Mount Everest can tell us how many chickens we’ll produce next year. We should rest assured that these predictions will be no more legitimate than the prediction of the book that was the basis for Soylent Green in the 1960s, the one that we would all run out of food in the 1980s or the prediction by a number of experts, including the economist Simon, that we would run out of oil by 1980. We were supposed to be in an ice age by now according to some in the 1970s. Nuclear war has not reduced the planet to a diamond pit. Always bet on the human race.
We have more oil, food and more of nearly every other commodity than we ever had before. Some are going up in price, but not because of any shortage. There are lacks of infrastructure and planning. There is speculation. But no shortages.
These same declinists have been wrong time and time again about most everything. Some were even wrong about Bill Shatner’s career. But we keep listening to them. They get rich and we overcome and forget about the fact that we made them rich. Free entreprise and capitalism hard at work. Hurray!
The risk that these unsound theories might take hold is greater if we render them self-fulfilling. We make oil scarcer by making it less available by limiting production or infrastructure and increasing taxes on it. The real test about any of these predictions coming true will be met by our ability to resist the unfortunate supporters of doom. Those who stand up and say things will be well aren’t usually met with support. The media doesn’t like good news. It’s hard to focus optimism.
That’s why democracy is important. And not just the kind at the ballot box, but the general popular will that is felt in even the most sodden dictatorships wherein a country, like China, bends to the pressure of its emerging middle class not to deny it the things that the Western world has enjoyed. It could be the American Dream, but it might be larger families or good medical care.
Ask yourself honestly: If China is going to be an economic superpower in the next 20-30 years, how can we possibly be going to the point where we would have no oil left. It doesn’t make any sense. China has 1/5 of the world’s population and it’s economic wellbeing depends on the US continuing to be an economic dynamo. Therefore, one can’t believe there won’t be enough oil. Even amongst those politicians that claim they advocate anti-oil policies, there will come a realization that they can’t politically survive if they continue to forward these policies. The oil will become available.
It might take some time and the sadness I have is that we may have to go through a mild slump like the 1970’s before we finally come to a new realization where we stop fantasizing that sanely regulated capitalism is the only way to deliver all goods, including energy. If there are going to be new and exciting alternatives, they are not going to be delivered by a government subsidy or program. They are going to occur by innovation driven by private capital demand.
The brilliant and exciting new idea about steam capture that was mentioned in the Atlantic Monthly is one of those. Green Spirit also has some great ideas like the revisitation of nuclear power in all sorts of guises, some of which are surprising. France at this very moment gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear sources. Sweden also relies on nuclear energy as well as hydro electricity. That’s why it’s one of the few countries that has met its Kyoto guidelines for carbon emissions.
Coming to these practical realizations will be sooner than later, I hope. But the political climate, as ever, could distort the progress so that we go through far more pain than we should. Those who think we’re going to power our economy through an ear of corn are short-termists, especially those who think so out of a desire for profit. The ones that understand that saying we’re addicted to oil is tantamount to saying we’re addicted to food are the true long-term thinkers.
This conclusion tempered with efforts to find other practical solutions to our energy desires and needs will lead to a better solution. It is difficult for people to understand that 6 billion people on earth are far less than the number of people that could be supported by the planet. The resources of our oceans and seas far outweigh all of the resources we’ve used in history.
Does this mean we should not have any care for husbandry or conservation? No. But the truly honest environmentalist is the one who realizes that the best way to husband those resources is through the private system and the removal of regulations and subsidies, incentives and counter incentives and other practices that countervail the natural forces that determine what resources our world economy needs.
If the environmental fight is couched in terms of the private economy, free thinkers everywhere score points. We need to show how fighting pollution, improving our environment and conditions of the air and water and other efforts to make the world cleaner are simply better managed and at lower cost by private delivery systems. This is similar to the strategy that a Thatcherite would pursue for government service delivery and that many other conservatives have said they want to pursue (with overall success, though mixed in some cases). There is no reason why they could not make the same compelling argument for this whole area of policy as we do in such things as competitive assistance for health care or education.
In these sectors, and in particular for infrastructure, conservatives have always argued that there is no reason why the government could not continue to regulate or provide standards for these fields. All we argue is that the actual service should be delivered privately rather than by the government itself.
Why should the government pay for the cost of building the road? It should restrict itself to designing the paramaters for the road and then on the basis of a logical approach. Three inches of gravel may be required of a specific grade, but the government should not dictate where that gravel comes from. The road would be essentially owned by the private company and a toll charged. This is green too, because a toll is a more efficient way of using the road than one that is completely free. The user pays something for using something that creates congestion.
The government doesn’t have to provide scrubbers. It should simply set minimum regulations of emission standards. We do this already. There could be many other areas where this is also more sensible, such as water and sewage treatment. The asset would be private as well as the investment. Therefore, the private company would ensure that it works more efficiently and is kept repaired to make the most money possible.
We do need to upgrade our infrastructure. Taxes don’t have to go up to provide these facilities if we allow the private sector to deal with it in return for a certain level of royalty. It benefits us all to have the infrastructure. This leads to a better environment for the community and provides jobs and revenue as well. It also leads to expertise that could be very useful in the rest of the world, for countries like China and others that are developing infrastructure, who will see their quality of life improve.
Look at Victoria Harbour in BC. It’s obvious the government has botched the job. Private companies could clean up the mess. Sewage is the real pollution there, not greenhouse gasses. It’s disgraceful and embarassing.
In the many ways he makes money, in everything from bran cereal to cheap airplane tickets to pulp sci-fi suggest that he’s not doing so badly from overpopulation.
I can’t believe that the philosophy of Gene Rodenberry was about there being too many people. A man that is so full of joy and vigor like Shatner who has time and time again proven pessimists wrong in his career would have such a glum view of the world and its prospects.
We are better off then we ever have been. Certainly we’re better off than when young Bill Shatner tried to go to McGill on a Jewish quota.
James Kunstler in his book "A World Made By Hand" is another one of these backwards thinkers. We make more oil than ever. We are not past our peak. The bottom line is that China is supposed to be an economic superpower by 2050. How is that going to happen if there is no more oil? Both things can’t happen. There is going to be enough oil for everyone. It’s just a matter of unplugging the taps, and that’s going to happen as well as people realize that the luddite view that we’ve peaked and are now declining is as legitimate a belief as that that the shape of Mount Everest can tell us how many chickens we’ll produce next year. We should rest assured that these predictions will be no more legitimate than the prediction of the book that was the basis for Soylent Green in the 1960s, the one that we would all run out of food in the 1980s or the prediction by a number of experts, including the economist Simon, that we would run out of oil by 1980. We were supposed to be in an ice age by now according to some in the 1970s. Nuclear war has not reduced the planet to a diamond pit. Always bet on the human race.
We have more oil, food and more of nearly every other commodity than we ever had before. Some are going up in price, but not because of any shortage. There are lacks of infrastructure and planning. There is speculation. But no shortages.
These same declinists have been wrong time and time again about most everything. Some were even wrong about Bill Shatner’s career. But we keep listening to them. They get rich and we overcome and forget about the fact that we made them rich. Free entreprise and capitalism hard at work. Hurray!
The risk that these unsound theories might take hold is greater if we render them self-fulfilling. We make oil scarcer by making it less available by limiting production or infrastructure and increasing taxes on it. The real test about any of these predictions coming true will be met by our ability to resist the unfortunate supporters of doom. Those who stand up and say things will be well aren’t usually met with support. The media doesn’t like good news. It’s hard to focus optimism.
That’s why democracy is important. And not just the kind at the ballot box, but the general popular will that is felt in even the most sodden dictatorships wherein a country, like China, bends to the pressure of its emerging middle class not to deny it the things that the Western world has enjoyed. It could be the American Dream, but it might be larger families or good medical care.
Ask yourself honestly: If China is going to be an economic superpower in the next 20-30 years, how can we possibly be going to the point where we would have no oil left. It doesn’t make any sense. China has 1/5 of the world’s population and it’s economic wellbeing depends on the US continuing to be an economic dynamo. Therefore, one can’t believe there won’t be enough oil. Even amongst those politicians that claim they advocate anti-oil policies, there will come a realization that they can’t politically survive if they continue to forward these policies. The oil will become available.
It might take some time and the sadness I have is that we may have to go through a mild slump like the 1970’s before we finally come to a new realization where we stop fantasizing that sanely regulated capitalism is the only way to deliver all goods, including energy. If there are going to be new and exciting alternatives, they are not going to be delivered by a government subsidy or program. They are going to occur by innovation driven by private capital demand.
The brilliant and exciting new idea about steam capture that was mentioned in the Atlantic Monthly is one of those. Green Spirit also has some great ideas like the revisitation of nuclear power in all sorts of guises, some of which are surprising. France at this very moment gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear sources. Sweden also relies on nuclear energy as well as hydro electricity. That’s why it’s one of the few countries that has met its Kyoto guidelines for carbon emissions.
Coming to these practical realizations will be sooner than later, I hope. But the political climate, as ever, could distort the progress so that we go through far more pain than we should. Those who think we’re going to power our economy through an ear of corn are short-termists, especially those who think so out of a desire for profit. The ones that understand that saying we’re addicted to oil is tantamount to saying we’re addicted to food are the true long-term thinkers.
This conclusion tempered with efforts to find other practical solutions to our energy desires and needs will lead to a better solution. It is difficult for people to understand that 6 billion people on earth are far less than the number of people that could be supported by the planet. The resources of our oceans and seas far outweigh all of the resources we’ve used in history.
Does this mean we should not have any care for husbandry or conservation? No. But the truly honest environmentalist is the one who realizes that the best way to husband those resources is through the private system and the removal of regulations and subsidies, incentives and counter incentives and other practices that countervail the natural forces that determine what resources our world economy needs.
If the environmental fight is couched in terms of the private economy, free thinkers everywhere score points. We need to show how fighting pollution, improving our environment and conditions of the air and water and other efforts to make the world cleaner are simply better managed and at lower cost by private delivery systems. This is similar to the strategy that a Thatcherite would pursue for government service delivery and that many other conservatives have said they want to pursue (with overall success, though mixed in some cases). There is no reason why they could not make the same compelling argument for this whole area of policy as we do in such things as competitive assistance for health care or education.
In these sectors, and in particular for infrastructure, conservatives have always argued that there is no reason why the government could not continue to regulate or provide standards for these fields. All we argue is that the actual service should be delivered privately rather than by the government itself.
Why should the government pay for the cost of building the road? It should restrict itself to designing the paramaters for the road and then on the basis of a logical approach. Three inches of gravel may be required of a specific grade, but the government should not dictate where that gravel comes from. The road would be essentially owned by the private company and a toll charged. This is green too, because a toll is a more efficient way of using the road than one that is completely free. The user pays something for using something that creates congestion.
The government doesn’t have to provide scrubbers. It should simply set minimum regulations of emission standards. We do this already. There could be many other areas where this is also more sensible, such as water and sewage treatment. The asset would be private as well as the investment. Therefore, the private company would ensure that it works more efficiently and is kept repaired to make the most money possible.
We do need to upgrade our infrastructure. Taxes don’t have to go up to provide these facilities if we allow the private sector to deal with it in return for a certain level of royalty. It benefits us all to have the infrastructure. This leads to a better environment for the community and provides jobs and revenue as well. It also leads to expertise that could be very useful in the rest of the world, for countries like China and others that are developing infrastructure, who will see their quality of life improve.
Look at Victoria Harbour in BC. It’s obvious the government has botched the job. Private companies could clean up the mess. Sewage is the real pollution there, not greenhouse gasses. It’s disgraceful and embarassing.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
June 3, 2008
According to Lorne Gunter who I normally trust and respect quite a lot as a Post columnist, the treaty of Westphalia kept "Europe largely at peace for more than three centuries". I don’t think so. How do you explain the 18th century. War was constant, at least with the major powers. I do know there were a number of invasions and counter invasions during the 16th century. It wasn’t Westphalia that brought about the Pax Britannica. It was the British Navy and the Congress of Vienna and the Treaty of Paris.
Germany invaded Austria and France during that period and lesser countries got in on it too. Westphalia had a loophole in it the size of a locomotive that was used over and over again by Napoleon, King Louis and Bismarck to "defend their territory" that had nothing to do with security or autonomy.
For most of our lifetime and the history of mankind, there have been dictators and thugs in control of countries. We have the chance to eradicate them. I don’t think sitting by and allowing Burma to kill hundreds of thousands of its own people is justified in the name of peace. It brings more trouble and gives comfort to all those aspiring juntas and others who look up to the likes of the president of Sudan and his likes.
The 1930’s are more instructive here. The more comfort and leeway you give dictators, the more trouble you get. Nihilism doesn’t work for me on this. The answer is for Western countries to back up the deals they make for the peace and security of peoples, whether or not the UN agrees.
Gunter points out that any of these countries could be secured by one brigade of troops. It doesn’t make it any better to sit back and let it go on. It’s excessive that we have the luxury of allowing people to die and molder and be poor and miserable while we comment on how safe our way of life is. Democracy would not have come to half the world by now if we had had that attitude in the past sixty years.
We have the means of eliminating the terrible scourge of blindness in children due to malnutrition just by the use of golden rice in the developping world. This isn’t happening because GM foods have been banned due to the activities of groups like Greenpeace.
We have victory in our grasp but we still seem determined to snatch defeat from its jaws.
*****
Does anyone ask in the Middle East who controlled the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip before the Six Day War? This war is cited as the turning point of Middle Eastern politics. Gaza, along with Sinai, was owned by Egypt which it lost in 1967 and only got back in 1978 when it achieved a peace treaty with Israel. Golan was held by Syria. No Palestinians lived there as far as I know. The West Bank was held by Jordan. Why weren’t the Palestinians given a state by those countries? The official reason: we’re waiting for Israel to be destroyed. The real reason: these countries had no more interest or desire in seeing a Palestinian state than Israel does now. They feared the Palestinians having any control over this territory. They wanted it for themselves and they thought the Palestinians would start a fundamentalist Islamic movement in its own country.
King Hussein of Jordan (who escaped assassination at least twice by these elements) was particularly worry about this. At least one-third of his country is Palestinian already, even without counting the West Bank. Certainly the Egyptians, always with an eye on the Muslim brotherhood, are worried about the same result.
It is hypocritical in extreme for these countries to talk about a homeland for the Palestinians when all of them, including the countries that held any of these territories before 1967. They had an opportunity to give the Palestinians a state and refused to do so time and time again. They continue to hold the dark dream that one day Israel will disappear through whatever means.
And for all those Christian Arabs who had the dream of living free in an Arab state once the Israelis were evicted from their various settlements, they should look at Lebanon and see their future.
*****
John Baird had this incredible faculty for convincing me to support something I don’t like. Recently, in an attack on the carbon tax that Stéphane Dion is considering putting into his platform (something I’m a little soured on of late), Mr. Baird said people have to ask themselves if they can trust Mr. Dion to spend any money he’d collect on the gas tax on the environment. This is why nothing happens regarding greenhouse gases.
I don’t care if the money raised is spent on the environment. That’s not the point. The point is to discourage people from doing things that create emissions. I don’t agree with the concept entirely and don’t agree with the underlying principle that we have to go out and fight global warming, I do find it amusing that Mr. Baird has found the wrong way to attack the issue. How would one spend it on the environment? If you can find a way, great. But since Mr. Dion is promising it will be revenue neutral, the money would be spent on the areas that income tax was spent for. Frankly, since I’ve advocated a consumption tax rather than income taxes, I find it attractive in that sense. I hope it’s married with a general tax cut so that there are equivalent reductions in income taxes otherwise people won’t understand it. Mr. Dion needs to explain how it’s going to be revenue neutral.
Mr. Baird is a one-note wonder who has no imagination at all. I don’t know if I support the carbon tax idea, but Mr. Baird is doing a good job of making me think about supporting it. Well done.
Whatever criticism I might have about a carbon tax, one thing you can say about it is that it would be a big step in getting rid of greenhouse gases. It would be more than Mr. Baird has done in well over a year of being the Environment minister.
Mr. Baird and Jack Layton are only the most recent examples of moron politicians (like Jim Prentice) who bring in more and more things to make it harder for us to get out oil and the gas the we need and then complain about the high prices of gas and how something needs to be done about it. If you believe that the consumption of this stuff is bad, who cares how high the price goes up? Why doesn’t Mr. Layton tell everyone to get on a bike? Why doesn’t he get on his?
*****
After the recent earthquake, China has declared the Olympics to be safe.
What about the Chinese?
Germany invaded Austria and France during that period and lesser countries got in on it too. Westphalia had a loophole in it the size of a locomotive that was used over and over again by Napoleon, King Louis and Bismarck to "defend their territory" that had nothing to do with security or autonomy.
For most of our lifetime and the history of mankind, there have been dictators and thugs in control of countries. We have the chance to eradicate them. I don’t think sitting by and allowing Burma to kill hundreds of thousands of its own people is justified in the name of peace. It brings more trouble and gives comfort to all those aspiring juntas and others who look up to the likes of the president of Sudan and his likes.
The 1930’s are more instructive here. The more comfort and leeway you give dictators, the more trouble you get. Nihilism doesn’t work for me on this. The answer is for Western countries to back up the deals they make for the peace and security of peoples, whether or not the UN agrees.
Gunter points out that any of these countries could be secured by one brigade of troops. It doesn’t make it any better to sit back and let it go on. It’s excessive that we have the luxury of allowing people to die and molder and be poor and miserable while we comment on how safe our way of life is. Democracy would not have come to half the world by now if we had had that attitude in the past sixty years.
We have the means of eliminating the terrible scourge of blindness in children due to malnutrition just by the use of golden rice in the developping world. This isn’t happening because GM foods have been banned due to the activities of groups like Greenpeace.
We have victory in our grasp but we still seem determined to snatch defeat from its jaws.
*****
Does anyone ask in the Middle East who controlled the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip before the Six Day War? This war is cited as the turning point of Middle Eastern politics. Gaza, along with Sinai, was owned by Egypt which it lost in 1967 and only got back in 1978 when it achieved a peace treaty with Israel. Golan was held by Syria. No Palestinians lived there as far as I know. The West Bank was held by Jordan. Why weren’t the Palestinians given a state by those countries? The official reason: we’re waiting for Israel to be destroyed. The real reason: these countries had no more interest or desire in seeing a Palestinian state than Israel does now. They feared the Palestinians having any control over this territory. They wanted it for themselves and they thought the Palestinians would start a fundamentalist Islamic movement in its own country.
King Hussein of Jordan (who escaped assassination at least twice by these elements) was particularly worry about this. At least one-third of his country is Palestinian already, even without counting the West Bank. Certainly the Egyptians, always with an eye on the Muslim brotherhood, are worried about the same result.
It is hypocritical in extreme for these countries to talk about a homeland for the Palestinians when all of them, including the countries that held any of these territories before 1967. They had an opportunity to give the Palestinians a state and refused to do so time and time again. They continue to hold the dark dream that one day Israel will disappear through whatever means.
And for all those Christian Arabs who had the dream of living free in an Arab state once the Israelis were evicted from their various settlements, they should look at Lebanon and see their future.
*****
John Baird had this incredible faculty for convincing me to support something I don’t like. Recently, in an attack on the carbon tax that Stéphane Dion is considering putting into his platform (something I’m a little soured on of late), Mr. Baird said people have to ask themselves if they can trust Mr. Dion to spend any money he’d collect on the gas tax on the environment. This is why nothing happens regarding greenhouse gases.
I don’t care if the money raised is spent on the environment. That’s not the point. The point is to discourage people from doing things that create emissions. I don’t agree with the concept entirely and don’t agree with the underlying principle that we have to go out and fight global warming, I do find it amusing that Mr. Baird has found the wrong way to attack the issue. How would one spend it on the environment? If you can find a way, great. But since Mr. Dion is promising it will be revenue neutral, the money would be spent on the areas that income tax was spent for. Frankly, since I’ve advocated a consumption tax rather than income taxes, I find it attractive in that sense. I hope it’s married with a general tax cut so that there are equivalent reductions in income taxes otherwise people won’t understand it. Mr. Dion needs to explain how it’s going to be revenue neutral.
Mr. Baird is a one-note wonder who has no imagination at all. I don’t know if I support the carbon tax idea, but Mr. Baird is doing a good job of making me think about supporting it. Well done.
Whatever criticism I might have about a carbon tax, one thing you can say about it is that it would be a big step in getting rid of greenhouse gases. It would be more than Mr. Baird has done in well over a year of being the Environment minister.
Mr. Baird and Jack Layton are only the most recent examples of moron politicians (like Jim Prentice) who bring in more and more things to make it harder for us to get out oil and the gas the we need and then complain about the high prices of gas and how something needs to be done about it. If you believe that the consumption of this stuff is bad, who cares how high the price goes up? Why doesn’t Mr. Layton tell everyone to get on a bike? Why doesn’t he get on his?
*****
After the recent earthquake, China has declared the Olympics to be safe.
What about the Chinese?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)