It seems PostMedia has received its marching orders from Harper's election campaign headquarters. How else to explain Shelley Fralic's op-ed column in the Vancouver Sun contending that political debates are meaningless, a waste of time.
You see, Stephen Harper isn't running like a panicked schoolyard bully in full flight from something relevant, something important to voters. Ah, forget about it. It's meaningless. Steve is just saying "no" to meaningless. Nothing to see here, move on.
It begins with a dismissive headline, "Ego-stroking leaders' debates offer little of substance to voters," a theme boldly carried on in the text
...why are the media, who cover politics like internecine warfare, so insistent that a showdown at the OK Corral, or more likely an air-conditioned television studio, is good for democracy?
Is it because voters, the ones who count come May 2, will learn anything from a televised debate?
No.
As political debates in years past have demonstrated, there is little to be gained from watching a politician sling an arrow in the hopes it will pierce a weak spot in an opponent's armour.
Debates shed even less light on the issues, and the chances of a contrived to-and-fro swaying voter opinion, much less an election outcome, is negligible.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Afghanistan Is Dangerous Enough for Canadian Troops
For the amount of actual, lasting good we've done there, Canadian soldiers have paid a steep price. The number of wounded and dead servicemen and women is testament to their sacrifices.
It's a dangerous place. We don't have freedom of movement there. Our troops remain tied to garrisons. Outside the wire is territory they definitely do not control. When the bad guys are able to bury roadside IEDs just beyond your gates, you don't control anything.
Thanks to our American friends the job is going to get even more dangerous. It seems they have laws that protect religious extremism even when it sets places like Afghanistan afire, even when it gives enormous aid and comfort to the very guys who are killing our people, the Taliban and their associated Islamist allies.
Nothing gives the U.S. the right to let its citizens put our soldiers in increased jeopardy, nothing. There are limits to this notion of free speech. We've long decided that it's not free speech to stand up in a dark, crowded theatre and yell "fire." When you cause people to get trampled to death, you're responsible - criminally liable in manslaughter because those deaths were the logical and foreseeable result of your reckless act.
If the Americans won't move against this pathetic pastor Jones, our troops should stay in their garrisons and pack up.
It's a dangerous place. We don't have freedom of movement there. Our troops remain tied to garrisons. Outside the wire is territory they definitely do not control. When the bad guys are able to bury roadside IEDs just beyond your gates, you don't control anything.
Thanks to our American friends the job is going to get even more dangerous. It seems they have laws that protect religious extremism even when it sets places like Afghanistan afire, even when it gives enormous aid and comfort to the very guys who are killing our people, the Taliban and their associated Islamist allies.
Nothing gives the U.S. the right to let its citizens put our soldiers in increased jeopardy, nothing. There are limits to this notion of free speech. We've long decided that it's not free speech to stand up in a dark, crowded theatre and yell "fire." When you cause people to get trampled to death, you're responsible - criminally liable in manslaughter because those deaths were the logical and foreseeable result of your reckless act.
If the Americans won't move against this pathetic pastor Jones, our troops should stay in their garrisons and pack up.
Why Is Bradley Manning in Prison But Not Terry Jones?
Florida's crackpot "pastor" Terry Jones has done more to give aid and comfort to America's enemies and to endanger the lives of his country's soldiers than alleged Wiki leaker Bradley Manning ever could be said to have done. Terry Jones must be the Taliban's new poster boy. He's certainly given the Talibs and plenty of devout Muslim Afghans even more proof that those strange talking white boys with all the guns genuinely are Crusaders.
Jones says he's not responsible for the deaths of those UN workers but he is. When he announced his plan to burn Qurans to mark the 2010 anniversary of 9/11 he received warnings from US Defense Secretary Gates and US Army commander General David Petraeus that the stunt would endanger American lives. The warnings got the old bugger to back off ...until now.
But he was warned. He was told, "burn those books, people will die." With that forewarning this fundamentalist shit went ahead, soaked a Quran in kerosene and set it alight. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was entirely likely, almost to the point of certainty, that he was condemning innocents to death. He went ahead and callously tossed those lives away for the sake of his stunt.
This killer knew exactly what would happen. He made that clear in numerous interviews last summer. Here's just one of them:
Now this Christian extremist (there are plenty of them, just like Islamic extremists) says he might just stage a trial of the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
It's likely that we've just seen the first wave of this latter day Jonestown massacre. This bastard needs to be quarantined, now. In fact, the Americans have just the place for Taliban supporters like Jones - Guantanamo.
Jones says he's not responsible for the deaths of those UN workers but he is. When he announced his plan to burn Qurans to mark the 2010 anniversary of 9/11 he received warnings from US Defense Secretary Gates and US Army commander General David Petraeus that the stunt would endanger American lives. The warnings got the old bugger to back off ...until now.
But he was warned. He was told, "burn those books, people will die." With that forewarning this fundamentalist shit went ahead, soaked a Quran in kerosene and set it alight. He knew what he was doing. He knew it was entirely likely, almost to the point of certainty, that he was condemning innocents to death. He went ahead and callously tossed those lives away for the sake of his stunt.
This killer knew exactly what would happen. He made that clear in numerous interviews last summer. Here's just one of them:
Now this Christian extremist (there are plenty of them, just like Islamic extremists) says he might just stage a trial of the Muslim prophet Mohammed.
It's likely that we've just seen the first wave of this latter day Jonestown massacre. This bastard needs to be quarantined, now. In fact, the Americans have just the place for Taliban supporters like Jones - Guantanamo.
Enough With Tolerance for Religious Extremism - Theirs AND Ours
To all ye Fundie/Evango ChristoFascist Motherfuckers who want to exercise their religious freedoms so long as someone else, in some distant land, gets to do the dying for it - suck on this, suck on it hard
Who told these morally corrupt sphincters that they got to choose between what conduct they would and would not be responsible for? "They" don't get to choose, you do. And don't let these douchebags, no matter how high they may climb in office, say otherwise.
Who told these morally corrupt sphincters that they got to choose between what conduct they would and would not be responsible for? "They" don't get to choose, you do. And don't let these douchebags, no matter how high they may climb in office, say otherwise.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Isn't This Illegal? Harper Offers Big Bucks to Quebec for Votes
A 2.2-billion dollar bribe?
Stephen Harper. The Canadian taxpayer funded treasury. Steve tells Quebeckers that, if they elect his government, he'll settle the multi-billion dollar HST feud with Quebec and send them a $2.2-billion cheque.
If Quebec is legitimately entitled to that money, why has Harper not sent it to them long ago? How can Captain Weasel tie Canadian taxpayers' money to his electoral performance?
Is this "vote for me and I'll finally do what's right" or "vote for me and the cheque will be in the mail, no questions asked"?
Doesn't Captain Weasel have even a shred of integrity in his body?
Actually while Harper is plainly morally corrupt and is obviously hoping to corrupt Quebec voters to back Tory candidates, he's technically not in violation of the Canada Elections Act which provides:
481. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence who, during an election period, directly or indirectly offers a bribe to influence an elector to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate.
I don't know if it's possible to bribe someone or an entire province of voters with their own money and Harper wasn't really trying to influence the people of Quebec to vote for "a particular candidate" either. He just wants them to back Tory candidates with Harper's promise of $2.2 billion for good behaviour.
Stephen Harper. The Canadian taxpayer funded treasury. Steve tells Quebeckers that, if they elect his government, he'll settle the multi-billion dollar HST feud with Quebec and send them a $2.2-billion cheque.
If Quebec is legitimately entitled to that money, why has Harper not sent it to them long ago? How can Captain Weasel tie Canadian taxpayers' money to his electoral performance?
Is this "vote for me and I'll finally do what's right" or "vote for me and the cheque will be in the mail, no questions asked"?
Doesn't Captain Weasel have even a shred of integrity in his body?
Actually while Harper is plainly morally corrupt and is obviously hoping to corrupt Quebec voters to back Tory candidates, he's technically not in violation of the Canada Elections Act which provides:
481. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence who, during an election period, directly or indirectly offers a bribe to influence an elector to vote or refrain from voting or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate.
I don't know if it's possible to bribe someone or an entire province of voters with their own money and Harper wasn't really trying to influence the people of Quebec to vote for "a particular candidate" either. He just wants them to back Tory candidates with Harper's promise of $2.2 billion for good behaviour.
US Army Kill Team Soldier Gets 24-Years for Murder
Now Wasilla, Alaska has another infamous notable, US Army Specialist Jeremy Morlock. The soldier was a member of an army "kill squad" that murdered Afghan civilians apparently just for the sheer fun of it. Morlock was sentenced to 24-years in a federal prison after pleading guilty to three murders. Three others await trial including the platoon sergeant who is alleged to have masterminded the murders.
Spiegel TV has a graphic documentary on the kill team. Unfortunately it's proprietary and can't be embedded. But you can find it at the following link:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,754452,00.html
Spiegel TV has a graphic documentary on the kill team. Unfortunately it's proprietary and can't be embedded. But you can find it at the following link:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,754452,00.html
You'll Be Waiting Quite a While Before Irish Eyes are Smilin' Again
When you read stories about Ireland's financial mess you always need to keep in mind that the population of the Irish Republic is a paltry 4.5 million and shrinking. That's well short of the almost 6-million Canadians living in the Greater Toronto Area.
It's tough to make much sense of the jackpot now facing those 4.5 million sons and daughters of Erin but it's bad and it's getting worse.
The past decade notwithstanding, Ireland is a dismally poor country. No one even knows what the true GDP will be. It's shrinking, fast, and it's got a long way to go. The country's debt, on the other hand, is headed just as fast in the other direction.
During those heady days of the Celtic Tiger, Ireland's banks plunged full bore into Casino Capitalism. A lot of speculators, mostly foreign, wanted in on the action and bought Irish bank bonds. Housing prices soared, Irish contractors had to hire armies of foreign tradesmen, and the banks lavished money for new housing developments wherever they could place it. The Irish banks along with Irish developers built houses for buyers that never were and never would be. One day everyone in Ireland was rich. The next day that bubble burst and everyone in Ireland was broke, if they were lucky, or else outright bankrupt.
As Ireland's banks wobbled the government that had sat so complacently fat and sassy thought that it could stick its finger in the dike. It guaranteed the bank debts owed to bondholders. It essentially transferred the debts the banks owed to speculative investors to the shoulders of the Irish public, all 4.5 million of them. Crisis averted they claimed - for a while. But the debts kept mounting up and the government eventually ran out of the borrowing power needed to keep the banks afloat.
Finally, no longer able to borrow, the government had to go on bended knee to the EU and IMF for bailout funds. The game was over, or so everyone thought and hoped. The Irish government pumped a total of 46-billion Euros, most of it borrowed, into the banks and thought the worst was over.
It wasn't.
An EU stress test has revealed Ireland's banks remain unviable. The government is going to have to pump in another 24-billion Euros atop the 46-billion already infused into the banks. That's a total of 70-billion Euros. That would have been half Ireland's GDP as measured back in the glory days. Reuters reports Ireland's debt to GDP will be 111% by 2013 with the extra 24-billion injection.
Some of the Cassandras who warned this mess was coming but were repeatedly scorned and rejected figure the extra 24-billion still won't do the job. They figure the Irish government will need to inject up to 55-billion Euros, not 24. If they're right, saving Ireland's banks (for what exactly remains unclear) will come in at over 100-billion Euros plus interest. For a nation of 4.5-million of anything but wealthy citizens, man, woman and child, that would be better than 20-thousand Euros per head.
It's hard to figure out how they'll even come up with the gas money to bulldoze all those empty, often unfinished and derelict housing estates that litter the countryside waiting for owners that never were and never will be. This much is clear. In order to pay off that debt, Ireland is going to be an ugly place to live for an awfully long time. I guess that's what comes of getting in over your head squandering money that you only existed in your imagination.
It's tough to make much sense of the jackpot now facing those 4.5 million sons and daughters of Erin but it's bad and it's getting worse.
The past decade notwithstanding, Ireland is a dismally poor country. No one even knows what the true GDP will be. It's shrinking, fast, and it's got a long way to go. The country's debt, on the other hand, is headed just as fast in the other direction.
During those heady days of the Celtic Tiger, Ireland's banks plunged full bore into Casino Capitalism. A lot of speculators, mostly foreign, wanted in on the action and bought Irish bank bonds. Housing prices soared, Irish contractors had to hire armies of foreign tradesmen, and the banks lavished money for new housing developments wherever they could place it. The Irish banks along with Irish developers built houses for buyers that never were and never would be. One day everyone in Ireland was rich. The next day that bubble burst and everyone in Ireland was broke, if they were lucky, or else outright bankrupt.
As Ireland's banks wobbled the government that had sat so complacently fat and sassy thought that it could stick its finger in the dike. It guaranteed the bank debts owed to bondholders. It essentially transferred the debts the banks owed to speculative investors to the shoulders of the Irish public, all 4.5 million of them. Crisis averted they claimed - for a while. But the debts kept mounting up and the government eventually ran out of the borrowing power needed to keep the banks afloat.
Finally, no longer able to borrow, the government had to go on bended knee to the EU and IMF for bailout funds. The game was over, or so everyone thought and hoped. The Irish government pumped a total of 46-billion Euros, most of it borrowed, into the banks and thought the worst was over.
It wasn't.
An EU stress test has revealed Ireland's banks remain unviable. The government is going to have to pump in another 24-billion Euros atop the 46-billion already infused into the banks. That's a total of 70-billion Euros. That would have been half Ireland's GDP as measured back in the glory days. Reuters reports Ireland's debt to GDP will be 111% by 2013 with the extra 24-billion injection.
Some of the Cassandras who warned this mess was coming but were repeatedly scorned and rejected figure the extra 24-billion still won't do the job. They figure the Irish government will need to inject up to 55-billion Euros, not 24. If they're right, saving Ireland's banks (for what exactly remains unclear) will come in at over 100-billion Euros plus interest. For a nation of 4.5-million of anything but wealthy citizens, man, woman and child, that would be better than 20-thousand Euros per head.
It's hard to figure out how they'll even come up with the gas money to bulldoze all those empty, often unfinished and derelict housing estates that litter the countryside waiting for owners that never were and never will be. This much is clear. In order to pay off that debt, Ireland is going to be an ugly place to live for an awfully long time. I guess that's what comes of getting in over your head squandering money that you only existed in your imagination.
How Harper Has Brought Canada Low And Sullied Our Once Proud Reputation Abroad
Steve Harper said he'd lead Canada to a new, higher place on the world scene. Then again this gaping maw said his government would be more accountable and more transparent than any other. Okay, so the guy's a pathological liar.
Now Amnesty International has released something it wants Canadians to think about during this election campaign. It wants Canadians to understand that, when it comes to international human rights, Canada is now seen as "part of the problem, not part of the solution."
Our once hard-earned and cherished reputation as a human rights champion never really mattered to our jumped up excuse for a prime minister. It never fit his image of Canada as a warrior state and so he ditched it.
“The world has always seen Canada as a human rights champion, but it’s increasingly ending up on the wrong side of important human rights debates,” Mr. Shetty said.
Now Amnesty International has released something it wants Canadians to think about during this election campaign. It wants Canadians to understand that, when it comes to international human rights, Canada is now seen as "part of the problem, not part of the solution."
Our once hard-earned and cherished reputation as a human rights champion never really mattered to our jumped up excuse for a prime minister. It never fit his image of Canada as a warrior state and so he ditched it.
“The world has always looked to leadership from Canada and it has benefitted from Canada’s strong position on human rights,” Amnesty International secretary-general Salil Shetty told reporters in Ottawa on March 31. “That leadership however seems to have disappeared from the world stage.”
During the press conference, Amnesty International released a report, and while neither Mr. Shetty nor the report referred to the Harper government by name, both said recent Canadian policies have contributed to this decline.
Among them were Canada’s refusal to impose tough rules for mining companies working abroad, its treatment of asylum seekers, recent cuts to NGOs working on development and women’s and human rights, and the government’s Middle East policy.
As an example, the report says the Canadian government’s “unflinching refusal” to criticize Israel’s human rights record has eroded Canada’s reputation in the region—and contributed to an absence of engagement at key times.
The Harper government was one of the few not to call for Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s immediate resignation during uprisings in that country in January and February.
The Amnesty report alleged that “Canada’s hesitation and reluctance with respect to Egypt almost certainly reflected the Israeli government’s preference that President Mubarak remain in power and minimize the chances that a new Egyptian government might abrogate the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.”
That Rotten Son of A Bitch Christofascist Has UN Blood On His Hands
Words fail me. That scumbag evango-hick from Florida, "Pastor" Terry Jones, finally carried out his threat to burn the Quran and his stunt has now cost the lives of 8 UN workers, two of them beheaded.
Jones burned the Muslim holy book on March 21st, claiming the Quran was put on trial in his church and found "guilty."
"We had a court process. We tried to set it up as fair as possible, which you can imagine, of course, is very difficult."
Meanwhile Al Jazeera reports the stunt had the predictable, totally foreseeable consequences - for UN workers in Iraq.
Demonstrators stormed the UN office Friday, opening fire on guards and setting fires inside the compound after reports that a evangelical pastor burned a copy of the Muslim holy book in Florida last month.
Two of those killed were beheaded by the protesters, according to police.
I have had it up to the tits with these fundamentalist evangelicals. Here's another one of these vermin, Mike Huckabee, telling likeminded shitheads that American youth should be indoctrinated "at gunpoint" if necessary:
And this asshole is considered a viable contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?
Here's an idea. How about if Americans honoured Terry Jones' constitutional right to burn the Quran by handing him a kerosene-soaked Quran and a box of matches in a public square in Baghdad on a Friday afternoon? Now that would really make a statement, one that Pastor Jones and his flock could be proud of.
Update: It's now being reported that Pastor Jones' scalp count may be up to 20. Everybody and his uncle is condemning the attack and rightly so but who is going to take this murderous Christo-hillbilly to account? Nobody, that's who because Jones is in America and his vile antics are protected by their cherished constitution.
Jones burned the Muslim holy book on March 21st, claiming the Quran was put on trial in his church and found "guilty."
"We had a court process. We tried to set it up as fair as possible, which you can imagine, of course, is very difficult."
Meanwhile Al Jazeera reports the stunt had the predictable, totally foreseeable consequences - for UN workers in Iraq.
Demonstrators stormed the UN office Friday, opening fire on guards and setting fires inside the compound after reports that a evangelical pastor burned a copy of the Muslim holy book in Florida last month.
Two of those killed were beheaded by the protesters, according to police.
I have had it up to the tits with these fundamentalist evangelicals. Here's another one of these vermin, Mike Huckabee, telling likeminded shitheads that American youth should be indoctrinated "at gunpoint" if necessary:
And this asshole is considered a viable contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?
Here's an idea. How about if Americans honoured Terry Jones' constitutional right to burn the Quran by handing him a kerosene-soaked Quran and a box of matches in a public square in Baghdad on a Friday afternoon? Now that would really make a statement, one that Pastor Jones and his flock could be proud of.
Update: It's now being reported that Pastor Jones' scalp count may be up to 20. Everybody and his uncle is condemning the attack and rightly so but who is going to take this murderous Christo-hillbilly to account? Nobody, that's who because Jones is in America and his vile antics are protected by their cherished constitution.
The Double Standards of the Anti-Nuke Enviro Crowd
The Fukushima nuclear reactor fiasco fractured the ranks of environmentalists into two camps: pro- and anti-nuclear. The two sides had always been there but they co-existed without much rancour at all. Now we're starting to resemble Sunni and Shiite Muslims, of course without all the bombings and beheadings.
I find the anti-nuke side hypocritical, self-righteous and astonishingly willing to lapse into the same double-standards they so indignantly ridicule on the global warming front. There are exceptions. My friend Jim Bobby remains ardently anti-nuke but he's concluded we've already lost the war to prevent runaway global warming anyway. From JB's perspective, I can accept the anti-nuke stance. To my mind I suppose he's probably right on our prospects for taming the global warming threat too but the repercussions of that defeat are so horrific that I don't think we can ever surrender that fight. I've wrestled with this but I won't, I can't.
The Guardian's top eco-correspondent, George Monbiot, also supports the nuclear option as a bridge energy source to help wean us from fossil fuels. He's been roundly roasted for that since the Fukushima fiasco but, today, he's fired back. Here are a few of his points:
Double standard one: deaths and injuries
We rightly lament the horrible consequences of industrial exposure to radiation. Two workers at Fukushima have so far received radiation burns and 17 have been exposed to levels of radiation considered unsafe. This is and should be a cause for serious concern. It is also worth remembering that no one has yet received a dose of radiation that is known to be lethal as a result of the Fukushima disaster. But if we are concerned about industrial injuries, why do we say nothing about the deaths and injuries in the industry most likely to replace nuclear power?
...Chinese coal mining alone kills as many people every week as the worst nuclear power accident in history – the Chernobyl explosion – has done in 25 years.
And this is to say nothing of the far larger number of injuries that coal mining inflicts, in particular the hideous lung diseases which plague so many miners and cause long, lingering and terrible deaths. When was the last time you heard an anti-nuclear campaigner drawing attention to this daily carnage?
Double standard two: the science
We emphasise, when debating climate change, the importance of the scientific consensus, and reliance on solid, peer-reviewed studies. But as soon as we start discussing the dangers of low-level radiation, we abandon that and endorse the pseudo-scientific gibberish of a motley collection of cranks and quacks, who appear to have begun with the assumption that it must be killing thousands of people every year, and retrofitted the evidence to match it.
Such people exist in every field, especially those that are politically contentious. We should, by now, have learned to be wary of them. But it seems that the temptation, for people hoping to make the case against nuclear power, is overwhelming.
Double standard three: radioactive pollution
If low-level radiation really was the problem that some environmentalists say it is, the focus of their campaign should be coal plants, not nuclear power. As Scientific American notes:
These are just a few excerpts from Monbiot's article. To read more, follow the link above. Meanwhile today's Guardian also contains a report about soaring world coal prices driven by Asian demand that stands to rapidly increase if Fukushima drives Asia away from nuclear power and more firmly into the arms of coal.
I find the anti-nuke side hypocritical, self-righteous and astonishingly willing to lapse into the same double-standards they so indignantly ridicule on the global warming front. There are exceptions. My friend Jim Bobby remains ardently anti-nuke but he's concluded we've already lost the war to prevent runaway global warming anyway. From JB's perspective, I can accept the anti-nuke stance. To my mind I suppose he's probably right on our prospects for taming the global warming threat too but the repercussions of that defeat are so horrific that I don't think we can ever surrender that fight. I've wrestled with this but I won't, I can't.
The Guardian's top eco-correspondent, George Monbiot, also supports the nuclear option as a bridge energy source to help wean us from fossil fuels. He's been roundly roasted for that since the Fukushima fiasco but, today, he's fired back. Here are a few of his points:
Double standard one: deaths and injuries
We rightly lament the horrible consequences of industrial exposure to radiation. Two workers at Fukushima have so far received radiation burns and 17 have been exposed to levels of radiation considered unsafe. This is and should be a cause for serious concern. It is also worth remembering that no one has yet received a dose of radiation that is known to be lethal as a result of the Fukushima disaster. But if we are concerned about industrial injuries, why do we say nothing about the deaths and injuries in the industry most likely to replace nuclear power?
...Chinese coal mining alone kills as many people every week as the worst nuclear power accident in history – the Chernobyl explosion – has done in 25 years.
And this is to say nothing of the far larger number of injuries that coal mining inflicts, in particular the hideous lung diseases which plague so many miners and cause long, lingering and terrible deaths. When was the last time you heard an anti-nuclear campaigner drawing attention to this daily carnage?
Double standard two: the science
We emphasise, when debating climate change, the importance of the scientific consensus, and reliance on solid, peer-reviewed studies. But as soon as we start discussing the dangers of low-level radiation, we abandon that and endorse the pseudo-scientific gibberish of a motley collection of cranks and quacks, who appear to have begun with the assumption that it must be killing thousands of people every year, and retrofitted the evidence to match it.
Such people exist in every field, especially those that are politically contentious. We should, by now, have learned to be wary of them. But it seems that the temptation, for people hoping to make the case against nuclear power, is overwhelming.
Double standard three: radioactive pollution
If low-level radiation really was the problem that some environmentalists say it is, the focus of their campaign should be coal plants, not nuclear power. As Scientific American notes:
"The fly ash emitted by a power plant – a by-product from burning coal for electricity – carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."This is because coal contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, which are concentrated in the ash. Not only does this expose people living around coal plants to higher doses of radiation than people living around nuclear plants; but the regulations for disposing of fly ash are far weaker than the regulations for disposing of low-level nuclear waste.
These are just a few excerpts from Monbiot's article. To read more, follow the link above. Meanwhile today's Guardian also contains a report about soaring world coal prices driven by Asian demand that stands to rapidly increase if Fukushima drives Asia away from nuclear power and more firmly into the arms of coal.
Iggy Calls Out Captain Weasel - Again
Poor Captain Weasel. A couple of days back this jumped up excuse for a prime minister was struttin' his stuff, challenging the Liberal leader to a one-on-one, man to man, showdown at the OK Corral - to the death, winner take all. Didn't old Uncle Lardass look all manly and all as he threw down the gauntlet?
Well Mr. SHarper didn't look too manly for too long after Mr. Ignatieff picked up that gauntlet and said, "anywhere, anytime." It was the classic Bully Boy moment when the kid in the schoolyard has had enough and stands up to the punk and the Bully Boy takes off running as far and as fast as his stubby little legs will carry his pudgy torso. "No, no, can't spare the time. Best I get back to campaigning." What kind of greasy punk is this guy, our prime minister?
I expect Steve was hoping that, like so many of his gaffes and scandals, it would quietly fall away and quickly be forgotten. Maybe not this time. The Liberal leader isn't letting Captain Weasel off the hook. He's chasing him down. Today Mr. Ignatieff issued an open letter telling Bully Boy, "I will meet you at a time and place of your choosing."
“I don’t understand why you have gone back on your word, or why you would wish to disappoint Canadians,” he said.
“As you stated, there are only two people who can be Prime Minister after May 2 – you or me. Canadians truly deserve to see us go face to face in a contest of ideas, values and very different visions for our country. That is what democracy is all about,” the Liberal leader stated.
“There is no need for complicated or convoluted debate formats. Just two podiums – and you and me. A true, honest-to-goodness battle of ideas and visions,” he said.
It looks to me that the Weasel Man is cornered. He can either take his chances with Ignatieff or wear this one every day for the rest of the campaign. I don't think Bully Boy has much choice now but to debate Iggy one on one. Harper's advisors have probably already figured out the point spread from what would almost certainly be a "no lose" event for Ignatieff. For Harper, the best possible outcome might be foreclosing all hope of a majority while the worst possible outcome could just be the unthinkable.
Well Mr. SHarper didn't look too manly for too long after Mr. Ignatieff picked up that gauntlet and said, "anywhere, anytime." It was the classic Bully Boy moment when the kid in the schoolyard has had enough and stands up to the punk and the Bully Boy takes off running as far and as fast as his stubby little legs will carry his pudgy torso. "No, no, can't spare the time. Best I get back to campaigning." What kind of greasy punk is this guy, our prime minister?
I expect Steve was hoping that, like so many of his gaffes and scandals, it would quietly fall away and quickly be forgotten. Maybe not this time. The Liberal leader isn't letting Captain Weasel off the hook. He's chasing him down. Today Mr. Ignatieff issued an open letter telling Bully Boy, "I will meet you at a time and place of your choosing."
“I don’t understand why you have gone back on your word, or why you would wish to disappoint Canadians,” he said.
“As you stated, there are only two people who can be Prime Minister after May 2 – you or me. Canadians truly deserve to see us go face to face in a contest of ideas, values and very different visions for our country. That is what democracy is all about,” the Liberal leader stated.
“There is no need for complicated or convoluted debate formats. Just two podiums – and you and me. A true, honest-to-goodness battle of ideas and visions,” he said.
It looks to me that the Weasel Man is cornered. He can either take his chances with Ignatieff or wear this one every day for the rest of the campaign. I don't think Bully Boy has much choice now but to debate Iggy one on one. Harper's advisors have probably already figured out the point spread from what would almost certainly be a "no lose" event for Ignatieff. For Harper, the best possible outcome might be foreclosing all hope of a majority while the worst possible outcome could just be the unthinkable.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
No "One on One" for Captain Weasel
Yesterday Harper was strutting his stuff, calling for a one on one debate with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. Oh yeah, baby, Harper was going to take Iggy to the woodshed for a good thrashing.
Until Iggy said, "fine."
That was Harper's "schoolyard bully" moment. You know, that moment when someone finally stands up to the punk and says "let's go fatboy." That ugly moment when the bully's is called and and shows he's a rotten coward.
Today bullyboy says he's not so keen on a one-on-one anymore. He'd rather devote his time to campaigning, the venue where he doesn't have to answer questions he doesn't want to take.
Today Stephen Harper renamed himself. He's no longer Prime Minster Harper. Henceforth, "Captain Weasel" will do nicely.
Until Iggy said, "fine."
That was Harper's "schoolyard bully" moment. You know, that moment when someone finally stands up to the punk and says "let's go fatboy." That ugly moment when the bully's is called and and shows he's a rotten coward.
Today bullyboy says he's not so keen on a one-on-one anymore. He'd rather devote his time to campaigning, the venue where he doesn't have to answer questions he doesn't want to take.
Today Stephen Harper renamed himself. He's no longer Prime Minster Harper. Henceforth, "Captain Weasel" will do nicely.
Of Feet and Fires
Accountability is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. We want a government that is accountable to the people and we expect our opposition parties to ensure that happens. We expect the opposition to hold the government's "feet to the fire." This isn't supposed to be just a matter of hollow, self-serving criticism or denunciation. That sort of thing may benefit the opposition politicians but it holds little of any real use for the public. We need, our democracy needs, legitimate criticism and thoughtful, realistic proposals for reform and improvement. That's what works for the public.
But what happens when government policy is rotten and the opposition, for its own self-serving purposes, doesn't hold the government's feet to the fire, doesn't expose and criticize its failures, doesn't offer proposals to set the government back to the service of the nation and the public? Surely when that occurs, what good is the legislature at all? What happens when Parliament falls silent, wilfully mute about pressing problems of the day?
We have no shortage of politicians wanting to rule our country but an astonishing dearth of those interested in governing. Ruling is arbitrary, whimsical, unguided, reactionary. It is building mega-prisons in an ongoing era of reduced crime. It is creating fears where fear is unfounded and ignoring legitimate anxiety over real threats as though, by not speaking of them, they'll go away.
Governing is political husbandry. It is administration and management. It is acceptance of a fiduciary responsibility for the country and its people, both now and for generations to come. Governing is acknowledging and confronting the challenges of the day and leading the public to the best solutions. It is leaving the land better than we found it, the people stronger and more cohesive. Even the architect of conservatism, Edmund Burke, espoused this. It was wholeheartedly embraced by Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
I like the Liberal election platform, as far as it goes. I like the education proposal, the health care and pension platforms. Yet, to me, those are all Tier 2 issues. They're important, necessary but surely not the great issues and challenges of the day. Education, health care, pensions are pretty thin gruel in contrast to the destructive problems that already beset our society - the growing gap between rich and poor, the need to arrest global warming, and the long-neglected imperative of assisting Canadians to meet the challenges, domestic and foreign, that the climate change already coming will pose. These will affect the stability, strength and resilience of Canada and the Canadian people, qualities we need to bolster to meet the changes that are already setting in and will tax us greatly in the coming decades. To me these are Tier 1 issues.
When Tier 1 issues aren't prominent on political agendas, aren't even incorporated in platforms, what it tells me is that I'm not looking at a party interested in governing but one merely seeking to rule. It's not a party that genuinely wants to build a better Canada but merely wants to hold the reins of power for an intermediate term of years. That's a party that stands, however unintentionally, to add itself as just another layer to all our other problems.
If our country didn't stand at a crossroads I might, as I have a few times in the past, accepted the "lesser of two evils" rationale and voted Liberal. But we are at this crossroads and the two evils, Greater and Lesser, plan to steer us in the wrong direction. I just can't go down that road.
But what happens when government policy is rotten and the opposition, for its own self-serving purposes, doesn't hold the government's feet to the fire, doesn't expose and criticize its failures, doesn't offer proposals to set the government back to the service of the nation and the public? Surely when that occurs, what good is the legislature at all? What happens when Parliament falls silent, wilfully mute about pressing problems of the day?
We have no shortage of politicians wanting to rule our country but an astonishing dearth of those interested in governing. Ruling is arbitrary, whimsical, unguided, reactionary. It is building mega-prisons in an ongoing era of reduced crime. It is creating fears where fear is unfounded and ignoring legitimate anxiety over real threats as though, by not speaking of them, they'll go away.
Governing is political husbandry. It is administration and management. It is acceptance of a fiduciary responsibility for the country and its people, both now and for generations to come. Governing is acknowledging and confronting the challenges of the day and leading the public to the best solutions. It is leaving the land better than we found it, the people stronger and more cohesive. Even the architect of conservatism, Edmund Burke, espoused this. It was wholeheartedly embraced by Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.
I like the Liberal election platform, as far as it goes. I like the education proposal, the health care and pension platforms. Yet, to me, those are all Tier 2 issues. They're important, necessary but surely not the great issues and challenges of the day. Education, health care, pensions are pretty thin gruel in contrast to the destructive problems that already beset our society - the growing gap between rich and poor, the need to arrest global warming, and the long-neglected imperative of assisting Canadians to meet the challenges, domestic and foreign, that the climate change already coming will pose. These will affect the stability, strength and resilience of Canada and the Canadian people, qualities we need to bolster to meet the changes that are already setting in and will tax us greatly in the coming decades. To me these are Tier 1 issues.
When Tier 1 issues aren't prominent on political agendas, aren't even incorporated in platforms, what it tells me is that I'm not looking at a party interested in governing but one merely seeking to rule. It's not a party that genuinely wants to build a better Canada but merely wants to hold the reins of power for an intermediate term of years. That's a party that stands, however unintentionally, to add itself as just another layer to all our other problems.
If our country didn't stand at a crossroads I might, as I have a few times in the past, accepted the "lesser of two evils" rationale and voted Liberal. But we are at this crossroads and the two evils, Greater and Lesser, plan to steer us in the wrong direction. I just can't go down that road.
Just In Case You Thought the World Wasn't Really Changing
We North Americans have had plenty of laughs at some of the stuff our British cousins eat - bangers & mash, bubble & squeak, spotted dick, blood pudding - maybe it's best to stop there. Well, according to a Dutch entomologist, by 2020 - less than a decade from now - Brits will be expanding their diet to include heaping portions of bugs. By then, animal protein - meat - is going to be in short supply and insects will be the protein of choice to make up the difference.
In an interview with Wired magazine, Prof Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University said: "The most important thing is getting people prepared, getting used to the idea. Because from 2020 onwards, there won't be much of a choice for us." He wants to persuade people to ditch prejudices about insects, and to persuade manufacturers and suppliers to come up with products that can be sold in "a reassuring and attractive manner". Dicke heads a Netherlands-based four-year programme aiming to produce a scientific and business plan to bring insects to western tables.
In the UK, the sale of insects for human consumption is part of what is still a niche food sector centred largely around novelty snacks. The specialist supplier Edible sells a range of delicacies ranging from Thai Curry crickets to BBQ worm crisps which are stocked by retailers such as Selfridges, and Harvey Nichols.
Tanya McMullen, grocery buying manager at Selfridges, said: "The Edible brand grows year after year. Our customers like it because it is so unusual. You don't find oven-baked tarantula and scorpion lollies in many places so it's a product most customers won't have seen before. It is difficult to say whether it's a current trend as it has always been a successful range for Selfridges but there is definitely an increasing number of discerning customers who are more and more willing to try something out of the ordinary. Sales are currently very strong having grown 20% in the last 12 months."
In an interview with Wired magazine, Prof Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University said: "The most important thing is getting people prepared, getting used to the idea. Because from 2020 onwards, there won't be much of a choice for us." He wants to persuade people to ditch prejudices about insects, and to persuade manufacturers and suppliers to come up with products that can be sold in "a reassuring and attractive manner". Dicke heads a Netherlands-based four-year programme aiming to produce a scientific and business plan to bring insects to western tables.
In the UK, the sale of insects for human consumption is part of what is still a niche food sector centred largely around novelty snacks. The specialist supplier Edible sells a range of delicacies ranging from Thai Curry crickets to BBQ worm crisps which are stocked by retailers such as Selfridges, and Harvey Nichols.
Tanya McMullen, grocery buying manager at Selfridges, said: "The Edible brand grows year after year. Our customers like it because it is so unusual. You don't find oven-baked tarantula and scorpion lollies in many places so it's a product most customers won't have seen before. It is difficult to say whether it's a current trend as it has always been a successful range for Selfridges but there is definitely an increasing number of discerning customers who are more and more willing to try something out of the ordinary. Sales are currently very strong having grown 20% in the last 12 months."
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Who Knew? I'm Green!
I finally took the CBC's Vote Compass test. All these years I thought I was a centre-left Liberal. Apparently not.
The Vote Compass verdict? I'm a Green. Not a near Green but an "on the money" Green. Not that it's the same as coming out of the closet or anything but I've had a nagging feeling in recent years that I had Green inclinations.
Which is not to say that I'll never be a Liberal again. In fact I believe the Green movement is naturally suited to the Liberal Party if it wants to embrace sound environmentalism. If, however, the LPC intends to remain resolute Bitumen Boosters they're politically unacceptable to me and, I'm sure, plenty of others.
It's unfortunate the Green movement is forging ahead at a time when the Libs desperately need every vote they can find. If Ignatieff would champion the environment instead of the Tar Sands he might find those extra votes handy.
The Vote Compass verdict? I'm a Green. Not a near Green but an "on the money" Green. Not that it's the same as coming out of the closet or anything but I've had a nagging feeling in recent years that I had Green inclinations.
Which is not to say that I'll never be a Liberal again. In fact I believe the Green movement is naturally suited to the Liberal Party if it wants to embrace sound environmentalism. If, however, the LPC intends to remain resolute Bitumen Boosters they're politically unacceptable to me and, I'm sure, plenty of others.
It's unfortunate the Green movement is forging ahead at a time when the Libs desperately need every vote they can find. If Ignatieff would champion the environment instead of the Tar Sands he might find those extra votes handy.
Steve Harper, Bruce Carson and the Koch Brothers
Canada's king of the petro-pols of Parliament Hill, Stephen Harper, is now firmly linked to ex-con Bruce Carson in what appears to be a perverse relationship. While key government officials are prohibited from lobbying after leaving their government employment, Carson, it seems, was brought onto the government payroll and into the Prime Minister's Office to lobby for the Tar Sands.
It seems reminiscent of Dick Cheney when, after Bush was handed the presidency, wasted no time bringing the likes of Kenny Lay, Enron and the Fossil Fuelers into the White House to covertly write their own national energy policy. Is that what Harper brought Gordon into his confidence to do, to be his direct line to the Oil Barons? Until Harper comes clean we'll never know. All we will know is that Harper chose to take on as a "political advisor" a defrocked former lawyer, caught stealing trust funds and convicted and imprisoned for his efforts who later twice resorted to Bankruptcy Act protection. With that curriculum vitae who wouldn't turn to a guy like Carson for advice? And leave out entirely the fact that this 66-year old is shacked up with a 22-year old "former" escort who was to be on the receiving end of the cash from a lobbying deal Gordon was pushing before he was caught out.
And if all this isn't scummy enough, let's bring in the Koch Brothers (tm), Charlie and Dave. It turns out that one out of four barrels of Tar Sands bitumen is processed by Koch Industries. They're big time Tar Sanders when they're not busy energizing the Tea Party and pumping megabucks into campaigns to derail action on global warming and sow doubt on climate science.
Talk about birds of a feather. Make that "buzzards."
It seems reminiscent of Dick Cheney when, after Bush was handed the presidency, wasted no time bringing the likes of Kenny Lay, Enron and the Fossil Fuelers into the White House to covertly write their own national energy policy. Is that what Harper brought Gordon into his confidence to do, to be his direct line to the Oil Barons? Until Harper comes clean we'll never know. All we will know is that Harper chose to take on as a "political advisor" a defrocked former lawyer, caught stealing trust funds and convicted and imprisoned for his efforts who later twice resorted to Bankruptcy Act protection. With that curriculum vitae who wouldn't turn to a guy like Carson for advice? And leave out entirely the fact that this 66-year old is shacked up with a 22-year old "former" escort who was to be on the receiving end of the cash from a lobbying deal Gordon was pushing before he was caught out.
And if all this isn't scummy enough, let's bring in the Koch Brothers (tm), Charlie and Dave. It turns out that one out of four barrels of Tar Sands bitumen is processed by Koch Industries. They're big time Tar Sanders when they're not busy energizing the Tea Party and pumping megabucks into campaigns to derail action on global warming and sow doubt on climate science.
Talk about birds of a feather. Make that "buzzards."
Monday, March 28, 2011
Even PostMedia Calling "Bullshit" on Harper
PostMedia's Montreal flagship, The Gazette, seems to have had its fill of Harper's rank hypocrisy on coalition governments. In fact, the paper is calling Harper out:
Harper maintains that the only legitimate governing party is the one that wins the most seats. Again, however, there are numerous examples to the contrary. In Israel, for instance, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party did not win the most seats last election, but formed the government in coalition with a third party. Does Harper then mean the Israeli government is illegitimate? The first foreign leader of a country Harper received after becoming prime minister was Australia’s John Howard, a role model for Harper and his Tory strategists, who a few years previously had formed a government in the same way. There was no quibbling from Harper at the time about Howard’s legitimacy; on the contrary, he was accorded the signal honour of addressing the Commons.
...a coalition of the Liberals and the NDP, if they had more seats and votes between them than the Conservatives, would not only be legitimate, but also more representative of the Canadian electorate, especially if between them they had a majority of the popular vote....Harper’s bogeyman is more like a straw man. Voters deserve more substance in the campaign discourse. Enough with the coalition fearmongering; let’s instead have a clear and honest presentation of what the parties have to offer.
Harper maintains that the only legitimate governing party is the one that wins the most seats. Again, however, there are numerous examples to the contrary. In Israel, for instance, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s party did not win the most seats last election, but formed the government in coalition with a third party. Does Harper then mean the Israeli government is illegitimate? The first foreign leader of a country Harper received after becoming prime minister was Australia’s John Howard, a role model for Harper and his Tory strategists, who a few years previously had formed a government in the same way. There was no quibbling from Harper at the time about Howard’s legitimacy; on the contrary, he was accorded the signal honour of addressing the Commons.
...a coalition of the Liberals and the NDP, if they had more seats and votes between them than the Conservatives, would not only be legitimate, but also more representative of the Canadian electorate, especially if between them they had a majority of the popular vote....Harper’s bogeyman is more like a straw man. Voters deserve more substance in the campaign discourse. Enough with the coalition fearmongering; let’s instead have a clear and honest presentation of what the parties have to offer.
What Greased Bruce Carson's Slide Into Harper's Office?
More revelations about how Bruce Carson came to take pride of place in Stephen Harper's PMO. I should have guessed the transition. Thievery, disbarment, conviction, imprisonment, tar sands, Harper. Talk about a linear progression.
Read Geoff Dembicki's expose in the latest Tyee and you'll see why Canada is falling into the cesspit of petro-statehood.
Read Geoff Dembicki's expose in the latest Tyee and you'll see why Canada is falling into the cesspit of petro-statehood.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Who's Watching the Mounties?
When it comes to federal elections there's good reason to keep a careful eye out for electoral shenanigans from the RCMP. Who can forget the leg up the then Commissioner gave Stephen Harper in defeating Paul Martin?
That was then, this is now and, at the moment, the national police service is headed by a Harper appointee in the form of a former Tory political functionnaire who is scheduled to gradually step down some time this summer after a very controversial reign.
Just prior to the election Harper's office tried to pre-empt a scandal by announcing it had called in the RCMP to investigate a former advisor to the p.m., Bruce Carson, for alleged illegal lobbying. This was after the Aboriginal Television Network broke the story possibly forcing Harper's hand.
Harper tried to stay ahead of the scandal by floating the narrative that any skullduggery in his prime minister's office would be sent directly to the cops. We were given the impression that Harpo had no idea of Carson's shady background.
That background included being caught misappropriating trust funds, disbarment, criminal conviction and imprisonment. Harper's reaction seemed to be "Who knew?" Now it seems there were plenty who knew and reason to believe that included plenty within the PMO as well, and quite possibly the RCMP too.
There is ample reason to question whether the RCMP is being used as a political firewall to shelter Harper from having to answer some pretty direct questions in the midst of an election campaign. We need at least some assurance that the RCMP has not become a political agency of the Conservative Party and its leader.
Indeed, the RCMP in its role in the Carson affair may have as much explaining to do as the PMO. Carson was well known around Ottawa long before Harper became prime minister. It seems hard to believe that Carson's reputation wouldn't be known to a life long Tory insider like RCMP Commissioner Bill Elliott. Did the RCMP vet Bruce Carson before he came aboard as a Harper advisor? If not, why not? If so, did the RCMP warn the PMO about Carson's chequered background? If the prime minister wasn't informed, who in the PMO was told and what was done with that information? What role did Harper play in the selection of Carson as his advisor?
These questions need to be raised - now. They need to be raised in the midst of this election campaign. Given the bizarre circumstances - facts, not smears - Harper needs to explain himself and give a clear accounting for the actions of his prime minister's office. Given its own past record and the fact that the force is now headed by a Tory Party insider, the RCMP needs to do some accounting and explaining of its own. Should the RCMP itself be investigated or is there some other means available to ensure the voting public it hasn't been transformed into an agency of the Conservative Party - again.
Look Mr. Ignatieff, this is a genuine scandal that has fallen into your lap. Harper shamelessly contrives smears to take down his opponents. You don't have to contrive anything here. All you need do is start asking some pretty obvious questions and not accept any lame excuses in answer. If you do any less you don't deserve to lead your party.
That was then, this is now and, at the moment, the national police service is headed by a Harper appointee in the form of a former Tory political functionnaire who is scheduled to gradually step down some time this summer after a very controversial reign.
Just prior to the election Harper's office tried to pre-empt a scandal by announcing it had called in the RCMP to investigate a former advisor to the p.m., Bruce Carson, for alleged illegal lobbying. This was after the Aboriginal Television Network broke the story possibly forcing Harper's hand.
Harper tried to stay ahead of the scandal by floating the narrative that any skullduggery in his prime minister's office would be sent directly to the cops. We were given the impression that Harpo had no idea of Carson's shady background.
That background included being caught misappropriating trust funds, disbarment, criminal conviction and imprisonment. Harper's reaction seemed to be "Who knew?" Now it seems there were plenty who knew and reason to believe that included plenty within the PMO as well, and quite possibly the RCMP too.
There is ample reason to question whether the RCMP is being used as a political firewall to shelter Harper from having to answer some pretty direct questions in the midst of an election campaign. We need at least some assurance that the RCMP has not become a political agency of the Conservative Party and its leader.
Indeed, the RCMP in its role in the Carson affair may have as much explaining to do as the PMO. Carson was well known around Ottawa long before Harper became prime minister. It seems hard to believe that Carson's reputation wouldn't be known to a life long Tory insider like RCMP Commissioner Bill Elliott. Did the RCMP vet Bruce Carson before he came aboard as a Harper advisor? If not, why not? If so, did the RCMP warn the PMO about Carson's chequered background? If the prime minister wasn't informed, who in the PMO was told and what was done with that information? What role did Harper play in the selection of Carson as his advisor?
These questions need to be raised - now. They need to be raised in the midst of this election campaign. Given the bizarre circumstances - facts, not smears - Harper needs to explain himself and give a clear accounting for the actions of his prime minister's office. Given its own past record and the fact that the force is now headed by a Tory Party insider, the RCMP needs to do some accounting and explaining of its own. Should the RCMP itself be investigated or is there some other means available to ensure the voting public it hasn't been transformed into an agency of the Conservative Party - again.
Look Mr. Ignatieff, this is a genuine scandal that has fallen into your lap. Harper shamelessly contrives smears to take down his opponents. You don't have to contrive anything here. All you need do is start asking some pretty obvious questions and not accept any lame excuses in answer. If you do any less you don't deserve to lead your party.
Is There More to Bruce Carson?
A usually-well informed Tory source has passed along a couple of interesting additions to the Bruce Carson saga.
It seems Carson's troubles go back to his tenure with the Ottawa Carleton Regional Municipality. He apparently left OCRM under some sort of cloud. From there he reputedly scarpered off to Soloway Wright & Co. where he got caught dipping into the trust funds which led to his disbarment, conviction and imprisonment.
The smoking gun, if it can be proven, is that Harper's PMO was warned "a number of times" not to let Carson anywhere near the prime minister. If true, who decided to ignore those warnings and why? What else was going on in Mr. Harper's office that would enable a guy with Carson's record to hop aboard?
It's almost impossible to believe that the RCMP would not have run a security check on Mr. Carson either immediately prior to or subsequent to his appointment. What did the mounties report? To whom? Did the RCMP Commissioner, himself a lifelong Tory functionnaire, have anything to do with Carson's vetting? It may not be possible to get the whole story through FOI requests but I'll bet it might be possible to get enough to require some clear explanations.
And, by the way, how does a 22-year old living with a 66-year old dodgy ex-con become a "former" escort?
It seems Carson's troubles go back to his tenure with the Ottawa Carleton Regional Municipality. He apparently left OCRM under some sort of cloud. From there he reputedly scarpered off to Soloway Wright & Co. where he got caught dipping into the trust funds which led to his disbarment, conviction and imprisonment.
The smoking gun, if it can be proven, is that Harper's PMO was warned "a number of times" not to let Carson anywhere near the prime minister. If true, who decided to ignore those warnings and why? What else was going on in Mr. Harper's office that would enable a guy with Carson's record to hop aboard?
It's almost impossible to believe that the RCMP would not have run a security check on Mr. Carson either immediately prior to or subsequent to his appointment. What did the mounties report? To whom? Did the RCMP Commissioner, himself a lifelong Tory functionnaire, have anything to do with Carson's vetting? It may not be possible to get the whole story through FOI requests but I'll bet it might be possible to get enough to require some clear explanations.
And, by the way, how does a 22-year old living with a 66-year old dodgy ex-con become a "former" escort?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)