At 6:05 AM this morning, Iraq time, the world became a better place. Saddam Hussein was executed.
While Human Rights Watch and others decried the execution, it is my opinion he got what he deserved given the brutality he inflicted on many innocent victims over his lifetime.
There are times when killing and/or war are justified. This was one of them.
Good riddance to a brutal, evil person.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
"Bad Luck" or Global Warming?
The Toronto Star ran this headline this morning on a feature about the top weather stories of the year.
Of course the storms hitting BC this year are caused by global warming, just as hurricane Katrina last year was global warming, the georgeous warm winter here in Ontario is global warming, and the breakup of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston is also probably "global warming". To determined eco-activists, "global warming" must be shoved in your face daily in order to stampede society into the solutions they favour based on emotion. The "reason" angle wasn't working too well. Panic is a better motivator.
I draw your attention to a map and a chart from Wikipedia ("Ice Age"). As recently as 10,000 years ago, not that long ago in geological and evolutionary terms, southern Ontario was under hundreds of metres of ice, and the oceans were 130 metres lower than they are today. The chart shows this pattern has been repeated for the past 400,000 years.
Global warming is certainly a fact, but I think it's time we realize this is a cycle that has been, and will be repeated in some form or another for millennia. Rather than wringing our hands and trying to "stop" the inevitable (many argue at best it can only be postponed, not stopped), perhaps our leaders should develop a strategy to deal with the consequences (coastal flooding, changing environments), and even the opportunities, rather than throwing trillions of our heard-earned dollars at rhetoric and ideology. (ie. If we can't convince you to share your wealth, and reduce inequality with the 3rd world via foreign aid handouts, then we'll stampede you into it with our latest equalization scheme ... Kyoto "carbon credits").
The warm winter in Europe was recently reported as being the warmest in 1,200 years, when Charlemagne was king. But Charlemagne didn't drive SUVs, and neither did the mastadons.
Global warming is real. History tells us that. So let's learn to deal with it. We humans adapt. After all, anything that gives us Atlanta's climate and sinks New York and Los Angeles into the ocean can't be all bad. (Calm down ... that was a joke).
The real immediate crisis is the current exponential growth in humanity that cannot continue, and nobody is even talking about it. Quite apart from the inability of our planet to support such exploding population growth on an ongoing basis, even if we succeed in halving our greenhouse gas output per capita within the next century, if our world population doubles in the same period, nothing will have changed.
Better to spend those trillions intelligently on educating the world's have-nots to a better life than susbsistence living in doomed high-risk coastal flood zones than simply pissing it away in head-in-the-sand handouts to both incapable and irresponsible regimes who will simply giggle with glee at the freebies (carbon credits) being flung at them by idiot ivory tower idealists in the developed world and promoted in our liberal media.
In the meantime, developing cleaner and more energy-efficient power sources, more energy-efficient appliances and technology, encouraging responsible energy use (not ridiculous pleas to turn up the air conditioning to uncomfortable highs, and turn down the furnace to uncomfortable lows ... why bother having the creature comforts if we can't use them?!), in the developed world is the way to go.
As a practical human, I want to see workable solutions with measurable outcomes to real-world factual challenges ... not opportunistic tax-grabs and equalization schemes from social engineers, Hollywood "experts" and eco-nazis. I am very willing to responsibly fine-tune our hard-earned lifestyle within Canada to adapt to inevitable change, but I will not give it up or throw it away for the pseudo-science, self-promotion of an ("I invented the internet") Al Gore, the eco-browbeating of the Salt Spring Island left-coast lobby (ie. David Suzuki and friends), the left-wing activism of the CBC, or the shamelss political opportunism of a (do as I say, not as I did)Stephane Dion.
But level out the population curve within a generation, and you will have actually accomplished something of value towards saving the planet. Current policies that, incredibly, encourage population growth is TRUE eco-irresponsibility, and likely suicide for our species within a relatively short time frame.
In my opinion, this is a much simpler strategy (free condoms to everyone worldwide regardless of income, massive public education and propoganda, and an end to all public policies that encourage and subsidize procreation ... and the economic reality of raising too many kids all on your own should do the rest). Surely flattening the population curve has a much higher chance of being achieved than trying to change the planet's climate cycle within 50 years!
Improving technology and encouraging conservation in developed societies is a no-brainer, but stupidly trading away our hard-earned prosperity and global economic advantage to our competitors, in a vain scheme to try to reverse 400,000 years of geologic and environmental history makes no sense to me. The giddy recipients of our foolishness will laugh all the way to the bank while the planet continues on the road to human population oblivion for reasons quite apart from "global warming". If you think we have "problems" at 6.6 billion (accumulated over all of recorded history), imagine this same planet with 13 billion in just two more generations (100 years). Good luck.
As I keep repeating, when you insist on making the wrong diagnosis, or purposely ignoring or avoiding the correct one for political reasons, there should be no mystery as to why your treatment isn't working.
Of course the storms hitting BC this year are caused by global warming, just as hurricane Katrina last year was global warming, the georgeous warm winter here in Ontario is global warming, and the breakup of Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston is also probably "global warming". To determined eco-activists, "global warming" must be shoved in your face daily in order to stampede society into the solutions they favour based on emotion. The "reason" angle wasn't working too well. Panic is a better motivator.
I draw your attention to a map and a chart from Wikipedia ("Ice Age"). As recently as 10,000 years ago, not that long ago in geological and evolutionary terms, southern Ontario was under hundreds of metres of ice, and the oceans were 130 metres lower than they are today. The chart shows this pattern has been repeated for the past 400,000 years.
Global warming is certainly a fact, but I think it's time we realize this is a cycle that has been, and will be repeated in some form or another for millennia. Rather than wringing our hands and trying to "stop" the inevitable (many argue at best it can only be postponed, not stopped), perhaps our leaders should develop a strategy to deal with the consequences (coastal flooding, changing environments), and even the opportunities, rather than throwing trillions of our heard-earned dollars at rhetoric and ideology. (ie. If we can't convince you to share your wealth, and reduce inequality with the 3rd world via foreign aid handouts, then we'll stampede you into it with our latest equalization scheme ... Kyoto "carbon credits").
The warm winter in Europe was recently reported as being the warmest in 1,200 years, when Charlemagne was king. But Charlemagne didn't drive SUVs, and neither did the mastadons.
Global warming is real. History tells us that. So let's learn to deal with it. We humans adapt. After all, anything that gives us Atlanta's climate and sinks New York and Los Angeles into the ocean can't be all bad. (Calm down ... that was a joke).
The real immediate crisis is the current exponential growth in humanity that cannot continue, and nobody is even talking about it. Quite apart from the inability of our planet to support such exploding population growth on an ongoing basis, even if we succeed in halving our greenhouse gas output per capita within the next century, if our world population doubles in the same period, nothing will have changed.
Better to spend those trillions intelligently on educating the world's have-nots to a better life than susbsistence living in doomed high-risk coastal flood zones than simply pissing it away in head-in-the-sand handouts to both incapable and irresponsible regimes who will simply giggle with glee at the freebies (carbon credits) being flung at them by idiot ivory tower idealists in the developed world and promoted in our liberal media.
In the meantime, developing cleaner and more energy-efficient power sources, more energy-efficient appliances and technology, encouraging responsible energy use (not ridiculous pleas to turn up the air conditioning to uncomfortable highs, and turn down the furnace to uncomfortable lows ... why bother having the creature comforts if we can't use them?!), in the developed world is the way to go.
As a practical human, I want to see workable solutions with measurable outcomes to real-world factual challenges ... not opportunistic tax-grabs and equalization schemes from social engineers, Hollywood "experts" and eco-nazis. I am very willing to responsibly fine-tune our hard-earned lifestyle within Canada to adapt to inevitable change, but I will not give it up or throw it away for the pseudo-science, self-promotion of an ("I invented the internet") Al Gore, the eco-browbeating of the Salt Spring Island left-coast lobby (ie. David Suzuki and friends), the left-wing activism of the CBC, or the shamelss political opportunism of a (do as I say, not as I did)Stephane Dion.
But level out the population curve within a generation, and you will have actually accomplished something of value towards saving the planet. Current policies that, incredibly, encourage population growth is TRUE eco-irresponsibility, and likely suicide for our species within a relatively short time frame.
In my opinion, this is a much simpler strategy (free condoms to everyone worldwide regardless of income, massive public education and propoganda, and an end to all public policies that encourage and subsidize procreation ... and the economic reality of raising too many kids all on your own should do the rest). Surely flattening the population curve has a much higher chance of being achieved than trying to change the planet's climate cycle within 50 years!
Improving technology and encouraging conservation in developed societies is a no-brainer, but stupidly trading away our hard-earned prosperity and global economic advantage to our competitors, in a vain scheme to try to reverse 400,000 years of geologic and environmental history makes no sense to me. The giddy recipients of our foolishness will laugh all the way to the bank while the planet continues on the road to human population oblivion for reasons quite apart from "global warming". If you think we have "problems" at 6.6 billion (accumulated over all of recorded history), imagine this same planet with 13 billion in just two more generations (100 years). Good luck.
As I keep repeating, when you insist on making the wrong diagnosis, or purposely ignoring or avoiding the correct one for political reasons, there should be no mystery as to why your treatment isn't working.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Liberal-friendly Spin - MSM does it again
I had to laugh at a Yahoo headline and report from Canadian Press this week.
The Liberal-friendly press lovingly spins their pro-Dion headline thusly:
Does the "story" warrant this headline? Let's see.
It is hard to evaluate the poll precisely since the story admits that "The Decima Research poll, (was) made available exclusively to The Canadian Press". I searched and couldn't find the poll or the questions asked. But one can read between the lines to find the questions asked (in quotations).
In response to the first (apparent) question,
Is this news or merely spin? I think I might have the "potential" to be an excellent Prime Minister "some day", given my experience, my knowledge of the political system in Canada, enough time to learn better French than his English, a great team and a whole string of good luck.
Given that a) many/most Canadians outside of Quebec and outside of the Liberal Party likely haven't got a clue who he is or what he stands for, or right before Christmas, do they really care, b) there is a margin of error of 3.1% in the poll, 19 times out of 20 c) roughly 32% of Canadians have already said they would vote Liberal if an election were held today anyway (poll done Nov. 5-9, when Liberals were leaderless) d) 30% voted Liberal in the last election even with the Chretien/Martin corruption/Mr. Dithers legacy ... just how significant is this "43%" yes response?
In other words, within the margin of error, the vast majority of these chronic "spotted-dog" Liberal voters would likely answer "yes" to this question even if, for instance, a Joe Volpe or Hedy Fry had somehow won the Liberal leadership contest. So how is this headline news? Only if you have an ongoing pro-Liberal/anti-Harper agenda methinks.
How about this earth-shattering factoid:
I particularly LOVE this next spin on numbers, and this has to be pure spin if you are honest with yourself ... even to diehard Liberals. It's almost embarassing it's so blatant. Shame on the writer and/or editor.
Quote:
Exactly what does "a breath of fresh air" mean? "Fresh" from 13 years of Liberal excess and corruption? Dion was in that cabinet. How could he possibly be "fresh"? "Fresh" from Stephen Harper's Conservative government? They've only been in power 9 months ... hardly long enough to be "stale". "Fresh" from the liberal media's view of how Canada should be run ... as a pacifist, interventionist, social collective? BINGO!
Decima CEO, Bruce Anderson is quoted as saying, "Clearly, he (Dion) has not yet accumulated much, if any, negative reputation". I agree, but there is little evidence of a positive reputation either.
From where I sit, the numbers seem to say that everyone who voted Liberal under the Chretien/Martin legacy in January, and who said they would vote Liberal in polling done Nov. 5-9 with a leaderless Liberal Party, are (gasp!) likely to vote Liberal under a new unknown new leader who happens to be Stephane Dion. I see little here to convince me that the answers to this poll would have been any different (within margin of error) no matter who had won the Liberal leadership, or that they are much different from the last election.
The people who answered favourably to these (in my opinion) "loaded" questions (ie. specifically designed to make him look good) would likely answer favourably to any Liberal leader. These are people who will likely never in a million years vote Conservative, and are thus not "swing voters" (ie. the ones who decide elections).
So I see no "news" here at all. I see only a predictable campaign by a very pro-Liberal media to try to make Stephane Dion look good (along with ongoing stories deliberately designed to make Stephen Harper look bad). See Stephen Taylor's blog, Dec. 22, 2006 "Globe and Mail too pessimistic".
I saw no hard polling questions regarding Stephane Dion's role as a cabinet minister in the Chretien government during the time of the sponsorship scandal, and how it is possible that such a long-standing cabinet minister from that sorry time couldn't have at least suspected that such corruption was rampant. I saw no questions about his dismal (not "spotty" ... DISMAL) record as environment minister (record and rhetoric are two completely different things). I saw no hard questions on his French citizenship ... "should the Prime Minister of Canada also be a French citizen?" I saw no hard questions on his arrogance and lack of tolerance to those lesser individuals than himself (as reportedly shown during questions about his French citizenship).
In other words, in my personal opinion, I saw only predictable pro-Liberal spin. I saw no headline news. I expect an ongoing campaign of such biased reporting. I believe that the parliamentary press corps do not like Stephen Harper.
Next polling question:
Headline News: "Majority believe Harper Unfit to Lead"
The Liberal-friendly press lovingly spins their pro-Dion headline thusly:
"Voters see Dion as blank canvas with very good potential as PM: poll"
Does the "story" warrant this headline? Let's see.
It is hard to evaluate the poll precisely since the story admits that "The Decima Research poll, (was) made available exclusively to The Canadian Press". I searched and couldn't find the poll or the questions asked. But one can read between the lines to find the questions asked (in quotations).
In response to the first (apparent) question,
"(Do you think that Stephane Dion has) the potential to be an excellent prime minister of Canada one day?"... 43% reportedly answered yes.
Is this news or merely spin? I think I might have the "potential" to be an excellent Prime Minister "some day", given my experience, my knowledge of the political system in Canada, enough time to learn better French than his English, a great team and a whole string of good luck.
Given that a) many/most Canadians outside of Quebec and outside of the Liberal Party likely haven't got a clue who he is or what he stands for, or right before Christmas, do they really care, b) there is a margin of error of 3.1% in the poll, 19 times out of 20 c) roughly 32% of Canadians have already said they would vote Liberal if an election were held today anyway (poll done Nov. 5-9, when Liberals were leaderless) d) 30% voted Liberal in the last election even with the Chretien/Martin corruption/Mr. Dithers legacy ... just how significant is this "43%" yes response?
In other words, within the margin of error, the vast majority of these chronic "spotted-dog" Liberal voters would likely answer "yes" to this question even if, for instance, a Joe Volpe or Hedy Fry had somehow won the Liberal leadership contest. So how is this headline news? Only if you have an ongoing pro-Liberal/anti-Harper agenda methinks.
How about this earth-shattering factoid:
"And almost one-third - including roughly one-third of NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Green party supporters - would like to see Dion win the next election."Wow!! This is shocking news to me. Checking Elections Canada results, "almost one-third" (30.2% to be exact) voted for the train-wreck Liberal Party in the last election. Of Course they would like to see him (any Liberal) win the next election. But this is apparently pre-Christmas headline news for CP and Yahoo.
I particularly LOVE this next spin on numbers, and this has to be pure spin if you are honest with yourself ... even to diehard Liberals. It's almost embarassing it's so blatant. Shame on the writer and/or editor.
Quote:
"Thirty-two per cent thought Dion, a former university political scientist, "seems like an academic who has trouble relating to the average person." But 39 per cent disagreed and 29 per cent were undecided.
On a somewhat more positive note, 32 per cent said Dion's "values are similar to my own," while 37 per cent disagreed and 31 per cent were unsure. And 33 per
cent said Dion is "a breath of fresh air in Canadian politics," while 41 percent disagreed and 26 per cent were undecided."
Let's see, ONLY thirty-two percent feel he's an out-of-touch academic who can't relate, but hey ... "on a more postive note" a WHOPPING 32% say he has values similar to my own and an even bigger 33% say he is "a breath of fresh air" (I'll assume that is a direct quote from the nice neutral question asked by pollsters in this "exclusive to the Canadian Press" poll.) Within margin of error, these two paragraphs contain exactly the same numbers for and against, but that statements that are pro-Dion are specifically spun as "positive", even though more respondents disagreed with the statements than agreed.
Remember, 30.2% voted for the Chretien/Martin version of the Liberals in the last election, and the margin of error is 3.1%. Yet this is deemed headline news on December 21, 2006.Exactly what does "a breath of fresh air" mean? "Fresh" from 13 years of Liberal excess and corruption? Dion was in that cabinet. How could he possibly be "fresh"? "Fresh" from Stephen Harper's Conservative government? They've only been in power 9 months ... hardly long enough to be "stale". "Fresh" from the liberal media's view of how Canada should be run ... as a pacifist, interventionist, social collective? BINGO!
Decima CEO, Bruce Anderson is quoted as saying, "Clearly, he (Dion) has not yet accumulated much, if any, negative reputation". I agree, but there is little evidence of a positive reputation either.
From where I sit, the numbers seem to say that everyone who voted Liberal under the Chretien/Martin legacy in January, and who said they would vote Liberal in polling done Nov. 5-9 with a leaderless Liberal Party, are (gasp!) likely to vote Liberal under a new unknown new leader who happens to be Stephane Dion. I see little here to convince me that the answers to this poll would have been any different (within margin of error) no matter who had won the Liberal leadership, or that they are much different from the last election.
The people who answered favourably to these (in my opinion) "loaded" questions (ie. specifically designed to make him look good) would likely answer favourably to any Liberal leader. These are people who will likely never in a million years vote Conservative, and are thus not "swing voters" (ie. the ones who decide elections).
So I see no "news" here at all. I see only a predictable campaign by a very pro-Liberal media to try to make Stephane Dion look good (along with ongoing stories deliberately designed to make Stephen Harper look bad). See Stephen Taylor's blog, Dec. 22, 2006 "Globe and Mail too pessimistic".
I saw no hard polling questions regarding Stephane Dion's role as a cabinet minister in the Chretien government during the time of the sponsorship scandal, and how it is possible that such a long-standing cabinet minister from that sorry time couldn't have at least suspected that such corruption was rampant. I saw no questions about his dismal (not "spotty" ... DISMAL) record as environment minister (record and rhetoric are two completely different things). I saw no hard questions on his French citizenship ... "should the Prime Minister of Canada also be a French citizen?" I saw no hard questions on his arrogance and lack of tolerance to those lesser individuals than himself (as reportedly shown during questions about his French citizenship).
In other words, in my personal opinion, I saw only predictable pro-Liberal spin. I saw no headline news. I expect an ongoing campaign of such biased reporting. I believe that the parliamentary press corps do not like Stephen Harper.
Next polling question:
"If you saw Stephen Harper drowning puppies, would you
still think he is fit to lead Canada?"
Headline News: "Majority believe Harper Unfit to Lead"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
