Bill Maher takes on religion the world over in this coming movie. Directed by Larry Charles director of BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN.
Looks great so far... unless you're religious. If you are, I suggest you otherwise pray for my soul. Don't expect any improvement, though.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/08/2008 09:59:00 AM
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Saturday, June 7, 2008
[Section 15] Please finish the following sentence:
"I swear, if the liberals abstain -- yet again -- in order to avoid an election, I'm going to..."
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/07/2008 02:16:00 PM
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/07/2008 02:16:00 PM
Friday, June 6, 2008
[Section 15] Harper, drop the lawsuit: G&M OpEd
An op-ed in today's Globe and Mail by lawyer William Caplan presents an argument hardly supportive of the Liberals, yet still calls for Harper to drop his libel suit against the Liberal Party, citing the House as being the proper place for the dispute, and calls the move to squash the tape recording a strategic flop.
I have a few qualms about how Caplan presents the manner, but no problem with his conclusions: this stuff belongs in the House, not buried in a courthouse. We, the people, are not served by sub judice.
So, what in Caplan's piece bother me? A number of things.
Harper still refuses, despite repeated questioning, to explain what he meant on the tape by "financial considerations." This is not the action of a person worried about their reputation, and has kept the rest of us wondering what went on. I'm prepared to believe that Harper knew nothing about a bribe as it may have happened, but until he answers that question directly, I'm still wondering. Indeed, I'm wondering more and more.
The Canadian public does not flock to the Liberal Party website for news (nor to the Conservative website, thank God -- is it run by stoned frat boys?). Any damage done to his reputation was done by CPAC, CBC, CTV et al. running the contents of the Question Periods later reprinted on the LPC website. Suing the Liberals over the contents of a clearly partisan website largely repeating some exchanges of a Question period or two already broadcast all over Canada is just plain silly.
And there is legal precedent in Ontario, admittedly a little remote from this case, which supports politicians repeating libel outside the House without legal penalty.
And I don't think that Cadman's credibility is seriously damaged by his not bringing the matter of the bribe up off of his deathbed. What he said then was for private consumption. Who would want to spend the last few months of their life embroiled in scandal?
And Harper has admitted being told of the bribe attempt by Donna Cadman, years ago. What did he do about it? Apparently, nothing, other then to swear to Cadman's widow that it wasn't true (how would be know for sure?). The CPC actually issued a press statement indicating this. I was amazed they admitted it.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives publish crap like this and this, not to mention those defamatory television ads, all quite actionable under Canada's libel law. Not that I advocate such suits, but, trust me, I know libel law. It can be done.
This is a public matter, and the people should decide, not a judge.
Thank you, Mr. Caplan, for reminding us how democracy works best.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 05:32:00 PM
I have a few qualms about how Caplan presents the manner, but no problem with his conclusions: this stuff belongs in the House, not buried in a courthouse. We, the people, are not served by sub judice.
So, what in Caplan's piece bother me? A number of things.
Harper still refuses, despite repeated questioning, to explain what he meant on the tape by "financial considerations." This is not the action of a person worried about their reputation, and has kept the rest of us wondering what went on. I'm prepared to believe that Harper knew nothing about a bribe as it may have happened, but until he answers that question directly, I'm still wondering. Indeed, I'm wondering more and more.
The Canadian public does not flock to the Liberal Party website for news (nor to the Conservative website, thank God -- is it run by stoned frat boys?). Any damage done to his reputation was done by CPAC, CBC, CTV et al. running the contents of the Question Periods later reprinted on the LPC website. Suing the Liberals over the contents of a clearly partisan website largely repeating some exchanges of a Question period or two already broadcast all over Canada is just plain silly.
And there is legal precedent in Ontario, admittedly a little remote from this case, which supports politicians repeating libel outside the House without legal penalty.
And I don't think that Cadman's credibility is seriously damaged by his not bringing the matter of the bribe up off of his deathbed. What he said then was for private consumption. Who would want to spend the last few months of their life embroiled in scandal?
And Harper has admitted being told of the bribe attempt by Donna Cadman, years ago. What did he do about it? Apparently, nothing, other then to swear to Cadman's widow that it wasn't true (how would be know for sure?). The CPC actually issued a press statement indicating this. I was amazed they admitted it.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives publish crap like this and this, not to mention those defamatory television ads, all quite actionable under Canada's libel law. Not that I advocate such suits, but, trust me, I know libel law. It can be done.
This is a public matter, and the people should decide, not a judge.
Thank you, Mr. Caplan, for reminding us how democracy works best.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 05:32:00 PM
[Section 15] Harper's transit tax rebate inefficient
After cancelling all kinds of carbon-reduction programs, one of the replacement programs harper introduced was the transit tax rebate, which granted some tax deduction for purchasing transit passes.
Although the idea isn't a bad one (greens have pushed for it), the plan was viewed not as beneficial as other potential endeavours. Many pointed out that public transit needs improving and expansion, so why not use that money (estimated at $200 million) on transit funding... or a thousand other worthy projects? And why cut great programs like Energuide (since somewhat restored) when there's this much money around?
It wasn't lost on some of us that this rebate would be made known over and over again to each and every Canadian by the government, transit systems and even your accountant/tax filer. To me, that seemed to be the real clincher: Though argued to be inefficient and not that effective, its ubiquitous result would portray Harper as both a tax fighter and a green politician.
Well, the naysayers have been verified. The rebate program is woefully inadequate and is very expensive for what carbon reductionss we get out of it?:
This always was more about Harper greenwashing himself than anything else.
The article also exposes other failures of Harper's 'green' policies:
Sadly, I'm not surprised.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 02:38:00 PM
Although the idea isn't a bad one (greens have pushed for it), the plan was viewed not as beneficial as other potential endeavours. Many pointed out that public transit needs improving and expansion, so why not use that money (estimated at $200 million) on transit funding... or a thousand other worthy projects? And why cut great programs like Energuide (since somewhat restored) when there's this much money around?
It wasn't lost on some of us that this rebate would be made known over and over again to each and every Canadian by the government, transit systems and even your accountant/tax filer. To me, that seemed to be the real clincher: Though argued to be inefficient and not that effective, its ubiquitous result would portray Harper as both a tax fighter and a green politician.
Well, the naysayers have been verified. The rebate program is woefully inadequate and is very expensive for what carbon reductionss we get out of it?:
...figures in the new plan estimate that it will be six times weaker, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming, than what the government had estimated in its last review from August 2007.
Matthew Bramley, the director of climate change policy at the Pembina Institute, calculated that the new estimates for the public transit incentive program translate into a cost of $7,419 per tonne of reduced emissions or about $35,700 for each car that is taken off the road. The average Canadian produces about 23 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year, according to Statistics Canada.
This always was more about Harper greenwashing himself than anything else.
The article also exposes other failures of Harper's 'green' policies:
The new plan also estimates that regulations requiring more biofuels content in gasoline and diesel will result in a reduction of about 1.8 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2010, even though the government had estimated last year that the regulations would be three times more effective.
The phase out of incandescent light bulbs is estimated to result in an emissions reduction of four million tonnes, according to the new plan, which is 50 per cent less than the reduction estimated in 2007.
Sadly, I'm not surprised.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 02:38:00 PM
[Section 15] Introducing the ECO wiki
The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has started up a wiki. Though sparse in content, I'm told a lot of content in on the way.
Though public access, it cannot be publicly edited. The idea is for the various analysts within the Commissioner's office to post their work as it becomes available, to be read by informed stakeholders. Though not the intended target, intelligent bloggers (not the other kind) intent on finding news before it happens may find this a useful resource for environmental issues in Ontario.
So far, last year's annual report is up. It alone is an eye opener.
I've added it to my sidebar.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 02:05:00 PM
Though public access, it cannot be publicly edited. The idea is for the various analysts within the Commissioner's office to post their work as it becomes available, to be read by informed stakeholders. Though not the intended target, intelligent bloggers (not the other kind) intent on finding news before it happens may find this a useful resource for environmental issues in Ontario.
So far, last year's annual report is up. It alone is an eye opener.
I've added it to my sidebar.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 02:05:00 PM
[Section 15] US Cap and Trade Senate bill defeated
I had mixed feelings about this bill. It failed. Oh well.
From TorStar:
Nice as it sounds, the proposal fell short of what is necessary, but would be superior to what is in place now: nothing! The economic impact argument was a red herring -- the expected costs would constrain the US economy by only a few months over a period of decades -- if you buy into that premise. The costs of global warming exist whether you count them or not.
Missed by many, though, was that buried in the bill was an allocation of subsidy for building nuclear plants. The subsidy amount? Try $544 billion -- that's right, BILLION.
$544 BILLION. For. Nuclear.
Despite how this is being reported, the bill was being squeezed from both sides. Organizations, such as NIRS we're opposed to this bill, though they favour carbon reduction.
Read more at Common Dreams.
Not in attendance were notable senators Obama, Clinton and McCain, though they supported the bill with letters.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 01:42:00 PM
From TorStar:
WASHINGTON–Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president.
Democratic leaders fell a dozen votes short of getting the 60 needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure and bring the bill up for a vote, prompting Majority Leader Harry Reid to pull the legislation from consideration.
The Senate debate focused on bitter disagreement over the expected economic costs of putting a price on carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas that comes from burning fossil fuels. Opponents said it would lead to higher energy costs.
Nice as it sounds, the proposal fell short of what is necessary, but would be superior to what is in place now: nothing! The economic impact argument was a red herring -- the expected costs would constrain the US economy by only a few months over a period of decades -- if you buy into that premise. The costs of global warming exist whether you count them or not.
Missed by many, though, was that buried in the bill was an allocation of subsidy for building nuclear plants. The subsidy amount? Try $544 billion -- that's right, BILLION.
$544 BILLION. For. Nuclear.
Despite how this is being reported, the bill was being squeezed from both sides. Organizations, such as NIRS we're opposed to this bill, though they favour carbon reduction.
Read more at Common Dreams.
Not in attendance were notable senators Obama, Clinton and McCain, though they supported the bill with letters.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 6/06/2008 01:42:00 PM
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)