Agrégateur de flux

On Bill Maher's RealTime show last night, journalist Glenn  Greenwald stood up to Maher on Muslims, Islam, and American foreign policy.



It's a long clip.  Greenwald's retort comes in around the 7-minute mark.

What is particularly irksome about Maher's Islamophobia is the shallowness of his historical view of Islam and the Middle East's rocky road to democratic reform.    Those of the Anglo-Saxon tradition usually recognize our own democracy as anchored in the Magna Carta Libertatum signed by King John in 1215.

Within our own culture we have been wrestling, often violently, with democratic reform for almost eight centuries.  Eight hundred years.  Now remind me, when did we extend the vote to half our citizenry, our women?   Was that several hundred years ago?  No!  Was it about one century ago?  Yes!   So it took us, with our great and noble democratic tradition, about seven centuries to enfranchise half our population who had been denied the vote on nothing more than their gender.   Think there weren't any religious influences in that sorry state of affairs?

You would think that, with our centuries of democratic traditions, we would have been instrumental in bringing the concept of political rights and freedom to the Middle East.  Did we?  Apparently not.

We're Still Kissing Saudi Ass In the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire post WWI, we carved the place up into colonial fiefdoms ignoring religious and ethnic realities on the ground and appointing whatever bunch of stooges we thought would best serve our interests.

Rumsfeld Greets Saddam - Better TimesIraq is a perfect example.  Britain and France betrayed the Kurds, who had been promised an independent Kurdish homeland at war's end, and instead began drawing straight lines that marked the new state of Iraq - Kurds in the north, Sunni Arabs in the centre, Shiite Persians in the south.  And then they chose the Sunni minority to rule the place because they thought them the most reliable and complacent.   The Brits, under the orders of then foreign secretary Winston Churchill, even used chemical warfare on the northern Kurds when they balked at paying taxes.   And all this eventually begat America's former buddy, Saddam Hussein.

Remember this evil Son of a Bitch? But our undying love for democracy was demonstrated next door to Iraq in Iran.  Post WWII Iran held genuinely democratic elections.  Prime minister Mohammed Mossaddegh was in charge when the Iranians thought it really wasn't a good idea that the Brits should be taking Iranian oil (under what is now called B.P.) for next to free.  So, in 1951, Iran's democratically elected Parliament voted to nationalize the country's oil reserves.  Not steal, nationalize.  Britain wasn't interested in negotiating compensation.   Instead the U.S. and Britain supported a coup d'etat in 1953 that brought their stooge, the brutal and bloody Shah Pahlavi to power, ending all that democracy nonsense.   That eventually begat the rise of the Mullahs and the theocratic revolution that toppled America's puppet.

Bill Maher and Company at this point like to get into the link between today's Arab political unrest and Islam.  To Maher, it's not democracy that's emerging but theocracy and the dreaded Sharia law.

Brothers in ArmsMaher conveniently overlooks the role that religion has played in ousting Middle East dictators.  The case of Hosni Mubarak is a good example.  Mubarak, propped up by first the Soviets and then America, ruthlessly and brutally suppressed every effort at democratic reform.   Such is the way of tyrants.   The very moderate "Arab Street" was oppressed but the West would offer them no assistance.  The group that did stand up to Mubarak was the Muslim Brotherhood and they paid dearly for that.  It was absolutely predictable that the Muslim Brotherhood should be the favoured choice once Egyptians were permitted to vote.

Theocracy?  Look at the centuries of struggle between Protestantism and Catholicism in Europe.  That's a saga richly littered with blood and death.  Britain wound up with its own church and the monarch was the head of that church.  They even had plenty of religious laws.   For something in the order of four centuries (although it might have actually been six) it was a capital offence for a Jew to be found in the realm.

And look at the restoration of theocratic influence next door in the United States.   Everyone from Chris Hedges to Andrew Bacevich to Chalmers Johnson and many more are chronicling the rise of a form of American fascism rooted in religious fundamentalism.

Too Much, Too Soon?  Yeah, Fair EnoughGwynne Dyer has pointed out that, yes, there's bound to be an Islamist tone to the introduction of democracy in the Middle East and we've played a major role in that outcome.   But the Muslim people are not the bloody-fanged monsters that we choose to see them as either.  They want to be able to live their lives much like the rest of us.  They want peace and security for their children.  Dyer predicts the Islamist influence will be laundered out of Middle Eastern democracy in a matter of several electoral cycles.

The Muslim people are just beginning their journey to democracy and it is more than disingenuous for us, with our eight tumultous centuries of still fragile and uncertain progress, to measure them against us or at least our wishful illusions of ourselves.

Guardian enviro-scribe, George Monbiot, took the arrival of a recrod, 400 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2 to deliver a few thoughts on our losing battle against climate change and what really stands in the way of our hope for progress.

"The data go back 800,000 years: that's the age of the oldest fossil air bubbles extracted from Dome C, an ice-bound summit in the high Antarctic. And throughout that time there has been nothing like this. At no point in the preindustrial record have concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air risen above 300 parts per million (ppm). 400ppm is a figure that belongs to a different era.

"The only way forward now is back: to retrace our steps and seek to return atmospheric concentrations to around 350ppm, as the 350.org campaign demands. That requires, above all, that we leave the majority of the fossil fuels which have already been identified in the ground. There is not a government or an energy company which has yet agreed to do so."

"Practical measures to prevent the growth of global emissions are, by comparison to the scale of the challenge, almost nonexistent.

"The problem is simply stated: the power of the fossil fuel companies is too great. Among those who seek and obtain high office are people characterised by a complete absence of empathy or scruples, who will take money or instructions from any corporation or billionaire who offers them, and then defend those interests against the current and future prospects of humanity.

"This new climate milestone reflects a profound failure of politics, in which democracy has quietly been supplanted by plutocracy.   Without a widespread reform of campaign finance, lobbying and influence-peddling and the systematic corruption they promote, our chances of preventing climate breakdown are close to zero."

These Star readers, whether you agree with them or not, have some interesting perspectives to offer:

Re: Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, May 2

Democracy is just a mirage, Letter May 5

Al Dunn is essentially correct in his characterization of democracy as it is generally practised today. But the fact that democracy is clearly the ultimate bait-and-switch trick pulled on us by the elites — keeping up the illusion of a fair say whilst actually holding us at arm’s length from the levers that could operate our share of the balance of power — doesn’t mean there is no hope for us or for democracy. It doesn’t have to be this way. The funny thing about democracy is that behind that veneer is an institution that can be reconfigured to actually work as advertised. The trick wouldn’t have worked otherwise.

Democracy can be a true and substantive system for the rest of us but only when each and every representative in our parliaments owes their seat and their allegiance to their electorate more than to their party and every voter gets a rep insofar as the number of seats in the House permits. This is achievable; it only needs a properly designed electoral system.

When voters are truly empowered to truly empower their representatives, democracy will no longer be an illusion. That is the “paradigm shift” our democracy needs.

And while our party elites have (unsurprisingly) seen fit to reject calls to cooperate for meaningful electoral reform the door is still open for individual candidates to respond to the challenge. What do you say, chaps: will you cooperate with us to empower each other or are you content in your role in maintaining the pretense in the face of our dire need?

Mark Henschel, Toronto

Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament, May 2

Over the past few weeks there have been numerous opinion pieces in your paper discussing the “disconnect” between Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and the general public. This is by no means an unplanned occurrence. Governments in general — Conservative ones in particular — have been changing the way that governments and the governed interact. They have done it through simple changes to the lexicon.

The most notable change is the words that governments use to describe those who are governed. We are no longer referred to by politicians as “residents” or “voters,” “citizens” or even “Canadians.” We are referred to as “taxpayers,” even by your newspaper and the media as a whole. To be fair, everyone pays taxes, whether it is on one’s salary, real estate holdings or a $2 bag of candy at the corner store. But being referred to primarily as a “taxpayer” by the government carries with it a certain understanding.

Taxpayers pay for goods and services provided by the government for personal use. It is a consumer transaction. As long as you get your money’s worth, there is no reason to expect more or to know how it got to you, as long as you received value for your dollar. If someone else cannot access these goods and services, it is because they cannot contribute as much as you can, not because the government won’t provide.

Moreover, your responsibility ends the moment you sign the cheque. There is no need for any additional input or concern. You can’t question Walmart’s foreign policy, environmental track record or how it deals with dissent from within or without either. After all, your only decision is whether you will purchase or not.

“Citizens.” on the other hand have both rights and responsibilities. Yes, they pay taxes, but their duties go beyond the financial transaction. They are expected to engage in public debate, care for those who need to be cared for, and concern themselves for the community at large. They often put the good of society before themselves. Unfortunately, from the government’s perspective, “citizens” tend to question agendas, complain on grounds of principle, and worst of all, vote … sometimes for other parties.

Many “taxpayers” are content to simply give up their rights as citizens if it means they pay their taxes and not be bothered beyond that; after all, the government has everything in hand, right?

Being a “citizen” is a lot of work, requires you to be passionate about mundane things and pay attention, but the citizenry develops the political power necessary to steer public discussion. Is it any wonder that these two aspects define the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy?

Neil McClung, Brampton

Your editorial and the excellent article a few days earlier by Bob Hepburn on the disconnect between Canada’s parliament and its people accurately indicates that something here does not work well.

I am familiar with the governance structures of both Germany and Sweden and both have far more involved and informed electorates and a far better relationship between their people and their governments, and what their governments do. They both have an electoral system based on proportional representation, where every vote counts.

Our system gave Mr. Harper a strong mandate to govern although only 24 per cent of the electorate voted for him, 76 per cent did not. If we had had PR at the last election we would have since had a Liberal-NDP coalition probably supported by the Greens and an overwhelming majority of the voters. I am sure they would have done many things differently than Mr. Harper, things both you and I would have supported.

The Star has always strongly opposed proportional representation and consequently we must thank you for giving us the current Conservative majority. It would be wonderful and a great blessing for Canada to fix our mess on Parliament Hill.

In your case it might be useful to fix your attitude toward what is a far superior and more democratic electoral system. We can really only fix ourselves.

Chris Smith, TorontoRecommend this Post

Andrew Coyne's opinions tend to fall on the right side of the political spectrum. That fact, however, does not make him a fan of the Harper government. In this morning's National Post he writes:

We’ve had some thuggish or dishonest governments in the past, even some corrupt ones, but never one quite so determined to arouse the public’s hostility, to so little apparent purpose. Their policy legacy may prove short-lived, but it will be hard to erase the stamp of the Nasty Party.
The Harperites have deliberately chosen to present themselves as the Nasty Party. Coyne, in fact, agrees with some of Harper's initiatives -- like raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security. The problem with the government is its style: "as overbearing as it is under-handed and that on a good day:"


When they are not refusing to disclose what they are doing, they are giving out false information; when they allow dissenting opinions to be voiced, they smear them as unpatriotic or worse; when they open their own mouths to speak, it is to read the same moronic talking points over and over, however these may conflict with the facts, common courtesy, or their own most solemn promises.
There are certain laws -- like the law of gravity -- which govern existence on this planet. This government's essential flaw is that it ignores the principle of what goes around comes around. It has nothing but contempt for its opponents, the press and -- most surprisingly -- the public. The result, Coyne concludes, is that:

"The odium in which they are now held is well-earned, and entirely self-inflicted."

Yesterday the former dictator of Guatemala, Efrain Montt, was convicted of 80 years in prison for Genocide. The sentence is, in a sense symbolic considering that Mr. Montt is now 86 years old and very unlikely to survive any significant time in prison. But the sentence is interesting at least because it is one of the very few examples in which a nation is actually trying to come to grips with its fascist past. The sad fact is that Guatemala has seen a string of dictators and brutal militarists (the current president was an military officer under the Montt regime). Central America (and Latin America in general) is awash with former dictators and political murderers, almost none of which have been brought to justice. In 1954 the CIA orchestrated a coup in Guatemala and in 1973 they orchestrated another in Chili. But few (and certainly no one in the US) has ever been properly brought to account for these events. The sad truth is that Montt is a drop in the bucket.

As the years have past I have come to realize that, for the most part, nations really don't really want to come to terms with their past. Nations (and nationalists) want to wave flags and sing anthems and are very good at ignoring the negative aspects of their country's past. I was shocked with I visited Spain with my partner (who was born and raised there) and realized that not only was it a country that had not come to terms with the fascism of the Franco but the country is full of young people who think he was a pretty good guy. If good ol' George Santayana was right, then counties that fail to come to grips with their past are in real danger of slipping back into the fascism that their country once embraced.

I grew up amid the Watergate scandal and as I have gotten older I have been amazed at the way that people in the US have gradually rebuilt the public image of Richard Nixon. Now, as countries go, the US is surely one of the most rabidly nationalistic and as a result even the so-called left in the US is not eager to keep the memories of Nixon's crimes in the public mind because they feel that it hurts the nation in general. A couple of nations (including South Africa and El Salvador) have used national reconciliation commissions in an attempt to come to grips with their past while avoiding the logistical mess of bringing potentially tens of thousands of people to justice. But it seems almost that, as a general rule, countries want to ignore the anti-democratic, brutal, dictatorial elements in their past. And in many cases they are inclined to even vocal defend such misdeeds. (I think that there is little question that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could, and should, have been brought up on charges of crime against humanity be we all knew that wouldn't happen.) It is not just that the victors write history but nationalists and so-called patriots simply don't want the "wrong" kind of history written.

And the saddest part of all is that Montt, his supporters (and his ilk elsewhere) actually believe that their crimes against humanity were not crimes in the first place, but that their deeds were harsh but necessary.

This brings us to our own dear leader. As far as I am concerned, Stephen Harper is a criminal. He has actively contravened the constitution, he has operated through electoral fraud, he has attempted to dismantle our democratic institutions, he is destroying the environment in ways that will be a terrible burden on future generations, and he has poisoned the political discourse in Canada to a degree from which it may never recover. But despite the fact that Harper makes the previous Liberal government (which he never tires of condemning) like a bunch of honest and honourable public servants, a good swath of Harper supporters believe that ANYTHING Harper does is justifiable and continue to hold to the untenable postion that he is an excellent Prime Minister.

I have no sympathy for a brute like Efrain Montt. But the truth is that this 86 year old man is little more than a scapegoat, a meaningless symbol for people to hold on to as though dictators and brutes really are held responsible for their murderous and anti-democratic past. As a general rule they aren't and perhaps never will be.

I have to admit that I have always disliked Pierre Poilievre. Something about him rubs me the wrong way.

He's abrasive, he's yappy, he's arrogant. He looks and acts like a weird old young guy trapped in the Cold War era.

And his recent comment that the "root cause of terrorism is terrorism" only reinforced my belief that he is a brutish right-wing ideologue.

As well as an absolute idiot.
Read more »

Our only full day in Paris was mostly wonderful and a bit frustrating.

We started the day with a small breakfast in a cafe, as we like to do in Europe, as opposed to eating at the hotel. Watching local people come and go, I remembered how locals always stand at the bar for their little morning coffee, and how we did that every morning when we were in Italy. Later in the morning, after breakfast, I do the same, as one little breakfast coffee is not enough for my caffeine addiction! After breakfast, we stopped at a local store for water and fruit - another routine we want to get into - and then walked to the D'Orsay Museum. The streets were quiet and the city looked beautiful.

We arrived at the Musee D'Orsay just as the very long line to get in started to move. The D'Orsay is a converted train station, and the main hall is breathtaking - literally, one of those spaces that, when I first enter it, makes me gasp. We wandered through the sculptures along the main hall, then did a quick view of the galleries on the sides, stopping for a more thorough view of some favourites, like Van Gogh. I always find his work so moving and so sad, and the D'Orsay has several great Van Goghs. The galleries are striking, with the walls painted in rich, dark colours, paintings arranged thematically, and flooded with light. I also looked at the Art Nouveau collection, which includes furniture and other applied arts, and which has the bonus of sweeping views of the Seine.

The D'Orsay's main Impressionism collection is now housed in a new portion of the museum, behind and above the grand hall. You take a special elevator to the fifth floor, and exit into a large room with a giant clock window: you are behind the huge working clock from when the building was a train station. Through the clock window you see the Seine below, the city in front of you, Sacré-Coeur, the white basilica on the hill, in the distance. It is spectacular.

The Impressionism collection is impressive, and the galleries themselves are beautiful. I am very fortunate to have grown up seeing the Metropolitan Museum of Art's extensive Impressionist collection on a regular basis, with my mom. I was a big fan when I was much younger, but my tastes have changed. I still like some - Cezanne's still lifes, Monet's poplars and haystacks, some of Renoir's women - but this is no longer my go-to art. And thank goodness, as the D'Orsay's galleries were way too crowded to be enjoyable. Standing in a crush of people really detracts from my experience of art. I'm unable to block out the crowd and inhabit the experience. The rooms were so crowded, we could barely stand in them at all. Famous paintings like Manet's Le dejeuner sur l'herbe were mobbed.

If you're interested in how the D'Orsay galleries were renovated and some of the controversial changes that were made, there are many good descriptions online, such as this blog.

We left the D'Orsay with our feet aching, which I see is destined to be an ongoing issue on this trip. Allan has always had problems with his feet, and I do as well in recent years. We're both determined to deal with it and not let it become a major obstacle, but... I'm a bit concerned how this will play out.

We walked quite a ways away from the vicinity of the museum to find a non-touristy bistro for lunch. We shared more escargot, sizzling in their little compartments of garlic butter. Allan had another croque madame, and I had a cobb salad, very ordinary food, but here, unlike any salad I have ever eaten - giant strips of creamy, intense Roquefort cheese, giant slabs of smoky bacon, meltingly sweet cold chicken breast, the crispest, softest bib lettuce and obviously freshly made dijon vinaigrette. And of course with our twice-daily vin rouge.

This is what we both find so amazing and wonderful about France: the simplest of food, prepared with such attention and care, with such quality ingredients, so that a simple meal becomes a food experience. By contrast, so much food in North America is nearly tasteless. And if it seems like I spend too much time writing about food, all I can say is that my travel journals are for myself, my record of our trip, and food is an essential part of our travel.

Once we leave Paris, we won't have lunch and dinner at restaurants every day. Most likely, we'll buy provisions for lunch from local stores and snack outside, then go out for dinner. But we decided that while in Paris, we should make every meal count.

After lunch, we walked around more, in a decidedly upscale part of town, mostly looking in shop windows and at the wonderful traditional Paris architecture. We wandered through the food hall of the venerable department store Le Bon Marche, called La Grand Epicerie de Paris, a kind of foodie's heaven. We saw fuzzy, newly hatched ducklings in a little parkette, old men feeding them bread, trying to shoo away the pigeons. The ducklings' parents were unconcerned, and the little fuzzy guys were giving the pigeons what-for.

We considered going to the Rodin Museum, which is in roughly the same neighbourhood of the D'Orsay, but our feet were hurting and we decided to leave it for the next day... which turned out to be a mistake. I mis-remembered the time of our flight to Barcelona, it's earlier than I thought, and we really don't have time for Rodin. I've been to the Rodin Museums, both in Paris and in Philadelphia, several times, so I can't complain. But I do love sculpture in general and Rodin especially, so it's a bit disappointing.

We walked quite a bit, despite foot pain, then rested in the room, and set out for a restaurant Allan had picked out for dinner. From the description in Time Out, it sounded exactly like our kind of neighbourhood bistro. A quick ride on the metro with one correspondance from our hotel... and the place was closed. A handwritten sign said the brasserie is open for lunch, and the bar closes at 7:00 pm. So, our second night in Paris, and our second metro ride to not find a restaurant! Fortunately this journey was much shorter than our failed expedition to find the ghost of Au Gigot Fin the night before. And fortunately the Metro makes it as easy as possible.

The Paris Metro is absolutely amazing. Trains run so frequently that people complain if they wait more than three minutes. Like the London tube, the signboards announce the minutes until the next two trains. The trains are fast and quiet, and the system is incredibly extensive. Unlike the London Underground, which is pay-per-distance, the Paris Metro is pay-per-ride (like New York), a more democratic system.

Visiting London and Paris again, however briefly, has been such a treat. Although I live in suburbia now, and may never live in a really big city again, I am such an urban person at my core. Being in a huge city charged with energy and possibility makes me feel so alive.

After our second round-trip metro ride for nothing, we returned to the neighbourhood of our hotel, and had dinner at one of the many local brasseries. We shared two rounds of appetizers: smoked salmon, escargot, pate, frites, tomate et mozzarelle. The smoked salmon was wonderful; we ended up ordering it encore. All those small plates called for two rounds of bourdeaux, and we also stopped at our neighbourhood bistro from the day before for coffee and dessert.

My French was a little better today. I lost some of my shyness and recalled more vocabulary - just in time for Spain. The crazy thing is I'm guaranteed to speak French on my first few days in Barcelona. Luckily, I'm not shy about speaking Spanish. I enjoy it and will get much more comfortable as the trip progresses.

deadmau5 feat. Chris James - The Veldt

It's an old legal adage that, "hard cases make bad law."   What it means is that when law is made in response to monstrous crimes, the sort that truly shock the public conscience, it can often result in inappropriate and unintended consequences for ordinary or lesser crimes.   In some circumstances it can even create crimes where none previously existed.

Alleged kidnapper rapist Aerial Castro will apparently face capital punishment should he be convicted of five counts of murder.  The supposed murder was the killing of a fetus through beating one of his victims to induce miscarriage.  He is said to have done this five times.

If the prosecution prevails it will have established the offence of fetal homicide which would probably extend to manslaughter and murder of the unborn.   Criminal sanctions normally associated with offences against a person would possibly now apply to the fetus in similar circumstances.

Castro is a hard case.  He abducted three girls and held them captive and sexually abused them over a 10-year period.   That's pretty monstrous by any standard.   Then you cap that off with five, brutally induced miscarriages.

If a third party causes a murder by inducing the death of a fetus, how is that to be distinguished from a woman obtaining an abortion or the attending physician for that matter?   Even if we create an exception for a woman's choice, would she still not be a murderer in the eyes of society - just one who, by some technicality, isn't facing a death penalty?   That would not only wreak havoc on the woman and her physician but it could tear a deep rent in the social fabric.

Aerial Castro has inflicted extreme damage on three young women.  It remains to be seen whether Cleveland prosecutors will inflict even more damage - on society.

There are two possible ways of looking at Senator Duffy's behaviour in the Senate regarding $90,000 in housing allowances.
Here's the Harper Con way:
The Harper government is praising Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy for showing "leadership" in the Senate expenses scandal.That's because he paid the money back, I guess.  But here's the Liberal way of looking at it:
But Liberals say the Conservatives are protecting one of their own, tipping off Duffy about ineligible per diems and whitewashing a report on his invalid housing allowance claims.Gee, which way is the right way to look at this? How can we ever possibly tell?
Well, when in doubt, I suppose we should look at what people actually do rather than what they say.
Yes, Duffy did pay back a whack of undeserved money.
But he kept signing those supposedly "confusing" primary residence declarations month after month, every month for three years.
And then he avoided answering questions about it by ducking through a hotel kitchen after a speech.
Some leader...

One of the most irritating features of government-by-press-release is the “re-announcement” — the enthusiastic proclamation, with full fanfare, of something that has already been proclaimed before, often many times. Today the Conservative government engaged in this practice, or, just as conveniently, had the media do it for them by playing up a funding announcement for a biofuel experiment by Pond Biofuels as though it were evidence of the “new” commercially oriented National Research Council:

Hard on the heels of announcing a new commercial focus for the National Research Council, the federal government today provided an example of what this new mission could mean for Canada’s premier science agency.

Yeah, well, that’s nice. One of the problems with this notion is that the NRC was already working on the algae file. In fact, unless I’m reading the entrails wrong, they were already funding Pond Biofuels to do exactly these sorts of projects. So while it’s nice to see that Pond Biofuels has made it another step toward full commercialization by building a subsidized bioreactor for a tarsands company in Alberta, this really isn’t the “new” NRC. This is the “old” NRC. Whether there will be a “new” NRC, and what form it will take, remains to be seen.

The reason I’m feeling a little bit snarky about this is because I’m deeply skeptical of the long-term usefulness of the sort of product that Pond Biofuels is now developing, with heavy government assistance. Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing sinister about them. What they’re doing is developing ways of capturing carbon dioxide at it’s released from various types of industrial plants and feeding it to algae in specially designed vats. That’s stage one, and there’s nothing blameworthy about reducing emissions. It is somewhat disturbing that the journalists don’t bother to tell us what percentage of the emissions are captured in this way. It seems unlikely that it would be 100%. But even a little bit isn’t nothing.

The problem is stage two. Stage two is that the captured carbon, via the algae, becomes the basis for a new biofuels “bonanza.” In other words, once they’ve prevented the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere they’re going to… convert them into saleable form so they can be released back into the atmosphere anyways. We’re not exactly making a great deal of progress here.

Defenders of Pond Biofuels will interject — correctly too, I might add — that it’s not really the same thing at all. Those biofuels are taking the place of conventional fuels. Less conventional fuel will need to be extracted and refined. The ultimate effect will be less carbon is released into the atmosphere. It’s the same argument that defenders of fracking use: that natural gas plants may emit carbon, but that the industry is still “green” because natural gas is better than coal, which is what the natural gas will be substituted for.

Which is why I don’t want to be too hard on Pond Biofuels, because they’re not doing anything wrong, but the fact of the matter is that this sort of technology is not helpful in the long run and it’s a waste of the NRC’s time, and the taxpayers’ dollars, because it means entrenching an industry we should be displacing. There’s no good follow-on here.

Tweet

An interesting exercise: mapping the sources of hateful Tweets in the US. The results might—or might not—surprise you. Here’s the interactive map itself. I wish someone would do this yeoman service for Canada—and overlap the map with Conservative ridings.... Dr.Dawg http://drdawgsblawg.ca/

An editorial I wrote today in response to this article that ran in The Guardian today: '[Anti-choice] movement supporters restate their opposition to abortion'. Submitted it to the paper, maybe it will run on Monday, fingers crossed.
______________________________________________________________


PEI's anti-choice Liberals

In The Guardian on the 10th, was coverage describing the small march on Province house by a group of anti-choice folks. I was surprised to read that one Liberal MLA was in attendance, and provided his anti-choice opinion to The Guardian - Bush Dumville, MLA for West Royalty-Springvale. I have to wonder beyond Lawrence MacAulay, Sean Casey and now Bush Dumville, how many other anti-choice Liberals hold elected office on PEI and potentially have the power to influence policy as it pertains to women's primary health care, specifically abortion services?
What the heck does it even mean to be Liberal on PEI? A little over a year ago (January, 2012) at the Liberal Biennial Convention in Ottawa Resolution 58 was passed
'Reaffirming Women’s Right to Reproductive Health Services'. Very clear support that apprarently is lost on some members.  And in a province as little as PEI 'a few good men' is all it takes apparently to eliminate women's issues from the landscape entirely.If you have a Liberal MP or MLA do you know what they stand for?  Have you ever asked your MLA/MP if they are pro-choice?I've learned a valuable lesson at the hands of this particular breed of conservative in red clothing. That I can't vote for people, I have to vote for the party. People can be all manner of things to all manner of people during elections. But at the end of the day, the candidates are only as good as their party's policies. And it seems the policies of the PEI Liberals leave a lot to be desired.  ____________________________________________________________________________ The more I learn about this PEI version of Liberal the more I understand why women have been denied reproductive health care services and denied representation in our provincial government for so long.

Sources for anti-choice references:Lawrence MacAulay: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/list-antichoice-mps-may-11.html (his voting record shows him voting in favor of abortion restriction related motions/bills) Sean Casey: http://faqmp.ichannel.ca/videos/live-stream-with-sean-casey/ (says he holds an anti-choice belief) Resolution 58: http://convention.liberal.ca/priority-resolutions/58-reaffirming-women%E2%80%99s-right-to-reproductive-health-services/

Late spring to early summer marks Dead Motorcyclist season.  It's the time of year when fatal encounters between motorcyclists and motorists are particularly apt to happen.

Many bikers are seasonal riders.  They put their machines away in the fall and over the winter and only get back on the road once the weather warms.  If someone is away from something that is skill-intensive for any extended period their skills will naturally degrade.  They won't be as sharp, as quick and probably not as alert either while they get into form.

Car and truck drivers experience something similar.   They're coming off a several months-long stretch in which motorcycle traffic is extremely light to non-existent.    They're not accustomed to looking for motorcyles, anticipating them.

And into this mix comes the "lethal left-hand turn."   You're in your car or truck and you're waiting for an opening in oncoming traffic to make a left hand turn.  You might have been waiting quite a while.  You might be frustrated, anxious.   You might be in a hurry to get somewhere.

Up ahead you see what appears to be a gap in the oncoming traffic, an opening in which you can nip through and make your left-hand turn.   You begin to key on the front vehicle to time your turn.  As it nears your foot comes off the brake and onto the gas pedal and you turn the wheel.

Only once you've moved off and are committed to your turn do you discover that the apparent gap wasn't an opening after all.   There's a vehicle there, a motorcycle that you hadn't noticed.  At this point there's probably not much you or the motorcyclist can do about it.  You're going to collide and there's every chance the biker will get the worst of it.  In fact this is the by far leading cause of motorcycle fatalities, the lethal left-hand turn.

The driver making the left-hand turn is at fault.  It's their responsibility not to enter oncoming traffic until they know the way is clear.  It's no excuse that they didn't see the motorcycle.

A lot of motorcyclists, while not strictly at fault, do little to improve their chances.   These days really low-slung bikes are quite popular.  The lower the machine the easier it is for the car or truck in front to mask it from oncoming drivers.  This can be made worse by riders who position their motorcycles in the very centre of their lane, in effect tucking their bike in behind the vehicle in front.  That can make it harder, even impossible, for the motorcyclist to spot the left-hand turner ahead.

For the next month or two especially, if you're waiting to make that left-hand turn across oncoming traffic, don't budge until you're absolutely sure that the gap that seems to be an opening is actually open.  Don't assume there's not a motorcycle in that apparent gap until you can see that with your own eyes.

Photograph - the accident shown in the photo above happened this morning just outside the Nanaimo airport at around 8:15.   The female motorcyclist was northbound.   A pickup truck was in the southbound lane, waiting to make a left turn.  The truck driver turned in front of the motorcycle and they collided.  The woman was airlifted to hospital in Victoria, her condition currently unknown.

Now, this has gotta sting, coming as it does from former senior advisor to Heil Harper, Keith Beardsley.
Fiscal responsibility has been the hallmark of the Harper government from day one. It's therefore quite interesting to see in year seven of his reign that the opposition is focused on trying to destroy the credibility the Tories have on that front. It's a good strategy on their part, enabled by some help from the government side.
He cites Scott Brison's jibe about each Economic Action Scam ad on Hockey Night in Canada representing the cost of the federal contribution to 32 summer student jobs.

Beardsley notes:
Simple stuff, but it resonates with Canadian families struggling to get their kids through university.
Yes, that resonates with Canadians with kids, but how about something that will resonate with all of us?

I did some math. One ad spot costs $95,000. The average yearly Old Age Supplement is a paltry $6,180.

Ergo, one EAScam ad = 15.3 yearly pensions.

In our ongoing quest to Divide the Right, it's time to bang the fiscal wastebin a little harder.

The other day I blogged about just two items: the mystery billions spent on consultants and the Economic Action Scam ads.

On Twitter, I asked my good friend Connie what her members think of such waste and unaccountability.

She obliged and started a thread at the Freaks with a link to my blogpost.

Embarrassing - hardcore leftists calling CPC on fiscal waste

by Connie Fournier » 05/ 09/ 13 11:23 am

With the CPC Convention coming up really soon, it's a good time for us to take an honest look at how the majority CPC government has been performing so far.

When the far, far left is calling the government on fiscal waste, I think we need to, at least, check it out.

What do y'all think?It didn't get much response. But hey, I'm trying and Connie is willing.

Harper is fucked on the so-con file and he knows it as Chantal Hébert points out.

And as a commenter there observes, the base is finally getting it too.
For all these years Harper's worked on the theory the "base" of his party isn't too bright, and it's taken the base this long to figure it out - which pretty much speaks for itself.
Scott Brison is a smart feller. So is Keith Beardsley. Let's help them out. Commit more math!

ADDED: Here's another unit of measurement: $3,000 a day for CON media monitoring. Two days = 1 average OAS pension.

These time-lapse photos - taken over 29 years - are very telling, about what we humans are doing to this Earth. Urban sprawl in Las Vegas, forests and delicate ecosystems being destroyed in the Amazon, melting ice-caps, pollution, and more.

How far will this go? When will the needed action be taken to curb this destruction of our planet? This is the only planet we have.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you live in certain parts of Europe, you can get a Volkswagen directly from the factory.   Your car is built to order and then stored in one of these 60 metre/200 feet silos where it awaits your arrival to take delivery.  Among other things you get your car with "zero" on the odometer.

There are two of these silos at the VW car store or Autostadt near the factory in Wolfsburg.   This video shows how the lift fetches a new car for a waiting customer.

The CBC's Stephen Smart sees rough waters and rocky shoals ahead for Ottawa-B.C. relations after Tuesday's provincial elections.

Perhaps for the first time in his reign our eastern ruler may be confronted by a province spoiling for a fight.

Most of the past dozen or so years can be seen as the golden era in B.C.’s relationship with the rest of the federation.
Former premier Gordon Campbell went to exhaustive lengths to maintain good relations with other provinces, especially Western provinces, and also with the federal government.

...But that was then, this is now. That golden era had already started to tarnish in the run-up to this election and, depending on the outcome of Tuesday’s vote, it could come to a complete end with much more of an us-versus-them mentality dominating B.C.’s attitude toward some of its key provincial and federal partners.

...While playing nice might get B.C. more in the long run, British Columbians have often rewarded past leaders who are seen to stand up for their province.
Given the positions of both Clark and Dix recently, they seem to be very aware of that reality.
The stakes are, arguably, higher this time, given the commercial importance of Alberta’s “landlocked” oil and the Western political base of the Harper Conservatives.

Fortress B.C.?  Sure.  Never in this province's history have the people had such good cause to feel imperiled and set upon by their distant, federal government.   Canada has morphed in to a petro-state and Parliament is full, on both sides of the aisle, with petro-pols whose only vision for the future entails sacrificing our coast and our way of life to peddle bitumen to Asia.

Ottawa wants to force British Columbia into submission, a state of  political occupation where the overwhelming view of the populace is suppressed and subordinated to the will of that distant authority.

We are confronted with a government whose henchmen have already dismissed the views of a solid and growing majority of our people as "extremist" and who have branded us as "inimical" (hostile to/enemies of) to Canada.   They have proclaimed our disagreement a "battle."   And now they're intent on political occupation of our homeland.

Any people subjected to occupation are moved to resistance.  Fortress B.C., perhaps, but only if Ottawa leaves us no other choice.

This is brilliant. Thanks to Anon, who, in his comment on my previous post, directed me to this video:

Let's try to spread this as widely as possible. Mockery and satire often seem to be the best way to respond to the nonsense and lies the government proclaims in our name.Recommend this Post

Is political satire too risky for American consumption?  Luke O'Neil argues in The New Republic that fake news has to go.

Did you hear the one about the racist NRA president? You probably did if you've been on Facebook or Twitter in the last forty-eight hours. A widely shared article from the website the Free Wood Post headlined, “NRA President Jim Porter: ‘It’s Only A Matter Of Time Before We Can Own Colored People Again,’” has been making the rounds (44,490 shares and 66,000 likes on Facebook), and rightfully so. It's an inflammatory, attention-grabbing hook that plays right into the stereotype liberals have about the people who join the NRA. The only problem here is it's obviously fake, which anyone who spent more than thirty seconds reading the article should have surmised. Even worse, the obvious fakery, so easily forgotten once you get the not-so-subtle gag, has gotten much more attention than the actually creepy things that Porter has really said about the Civil War.
“People on the Internet Are Gullible!” would probably be a much less successful headline, and this wouldn't even be worthy of mentioning if it didn't happen so often. The satire site The Daily Currant, has been pulling the same bait and switch over the past year to a similarly facepalming effect: Remember the bit about Todd Akin suggesting that breast milk could cure homosexuality? And then there's Literally Unbelievable, the Tumblr that pulls together incredibly credulous reactions to The Onion stories as if they were real. It's not just average people falling for those stories either; the list of actual news gathering organizations throughout the world being played for suckers is genuinely embarrassing. The Drudge Report galumphed its way into the media news last week, making its top link a Daily Currant story about New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg being denied a second slice of pizza at a restaurant. Back in February, The Washington Post picked up another Currant yarn about Sarah Palin joining Al Jazeera America.

I think O'Neil overstates his case.  If The Washington Post is conned by political satire the problem is with the newspaper, not the satire.  WaPo needs to up its game.  But the point O'Neil overlooks is that the American public isn't endangered by the satirical fake news sources but from mainstream fake news and opinion outlets, the powerful misinformation industry, with names like FOX News, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage and so many others.   The damage they do to the American public renders utterly insignificant the few hundreds who may actually be too gullible for political satire. 

 And, after all, isn't that what satirical fake news does, attack the mainstream misinformation industry?   Who else calls out Fox News and Limbaugh and all these other charlatans and absolutely shreds them but The Daily Show and Jon Stewart?  You won't find that scathing dissection in The New York Times or anywhere else but in satirical fake news sites.