Another handout for Big Oil

Interesting post by Robert McClelland:

Hey, the poor oil companies can barely manage to get by on their tens of billions of dollars in profit every year so why shouldn’t the taxpayer fork over a billion dollars to help them out.

Alberta wants Ottawa to help build a $1.5-billion pipeline that would put carbon dioxide emissions from the northern oilsands industry to work in oil wells hundreds of kilometres away.

Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Guy Boutilier is pushing Premier Ed Stelmach’s plan to capture C02 and send it through a $1.5-billion, 400-kilometre pipeline that would allow it to be used to help get more oil out of low-producing wells.

Boutilier wants Ottawa to pony up with $500 million for the pipeline, which would start in his riding in northeastern Alberta. Another $500 million each would come from the province and industry, he said.

You really have to admire the Conservatives on this one for showing their compassionate side by extending a helping hand to the downtrodden billionaires in this country. For that and your rejection of liberal NIMBYism–as demonstrated by your willingness to allow this project to begin in your own backyard–I salute you, Mr. Boutilier.

How progressive is Progressive Bloggers?

I believe in democracy. I think most progressive bloggers do, but I have a problem when people use it to oust others from contributing.
I believe in free speech. Does PB?

At issue: the riddance of Robert McLelland.

Jews are being (pardonne le mot) fucked on a daily basis.
Robert McLelland statement "Fuck the Jews" CAN be conceived as an anti-semitic statement, but doesn't necessarily have to be conceived that way; it all depends on the context.
Here's an (somewhat extreme) example of context: Every day many Jews do get fucked, literally speaking. And, most probably, a lot of them enjoy it quite a bit (I hope), since sex can be a pleasant passing of time :). Theirs nothing wrong about fucking a Jew, just like there's nothing wrong about fucking an Arab, a Canadian, an Israeli or a Dutch person; enjoy fucking!

Clearly this wasn't the kind of "fucking" that Robert had in mind, but it does show that "Fuck the Jews" doesn't have to be an anti-semitic statement.

So what is an anti-semite?
As a matter of convenience let's use the Wikipedia description:

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Jewish persons as a religious, racial, or ethnic group, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution.

So discriminating someone solely because he's Jewish is anti-semitic. But, for example, criticising the state of Israel because you don't agree with one of their policies doesn't have to be anti-semitic. Yes, there's a fine line somewhere, but is it up to the "Chief Moderator" of "Progressive Bloggers" to decide where that line is?

I'm Anti-everything
Generalizing is the issue here. Everybody does it, yet it's the root of the problem. When I hear a "State of Union" address by George Bush, my instinct tells me something which comes pretty close to "Fuck the Americans"; all the double-speak and spin, it just makes me sick. But I do realize there are plenty of Americans who are more disappointed in George Bush than I am. That's why you won't (easily) find something like "Fuck the Americans" on my blog.

I also have problems with a lot of the policies of the government of Israel, as you can often read on my blog. Does this make me an anti-semite? NO! If that makes me an anti-semite than we can call pretty much anyone who criticizes a Jew, Jewish Institution, the State Israel etc. an anti-semite.

Jason Cherniak could be considered an anti-semite...
Take Jason Cherniak as an example. He talks about good and "bad" Jews in many of his posts. Is he therefore an anti-semite? I don't think so.

Jason does smear the Jew Noam Chomsky, accusing him of being a Holocaust-denier. As Eugene pointed out (thank you, Eugene) Noam Chomsky is not a Holocaust-denier. Do we consider smearing a Jew with false accusations anti-semitic? Conceivably.

The 5-1 vote; Democracy abused.
Robert's use of language is not my "cup of tea". I don't like his provocative style of writing in a lot of his postings and comments. But this is the Internet! It's free speech, and I'm glad it's here. Love or hate Robert's postings, 95% of what he writes is progressive (and a lot more progressive than Conservative Liberal Jason Cherniak).

The vote to expel Robert does remind me another time and place: Germany in the 1930s. In both cases democracy was implied from the top. I don't remember voting for or against Robert, nor do Germans remember voting for or against extinction of the Jews.

Above all freedom of speech is at the core of a well functioning democracy. I believe most progressive bloggers blog because they are idealists. And to me Robert is clearly one of them. If his postings become anti-semitic of nature, we, as a community of progressive bloggers, should call him on it. But removing him from the PB through a vote from the top is not Progressive.

Criminalizing War; the Belgians lead

Real progress to criminalize the excesses of war has been made in Oslo;

Good news from Belgium. After forty-six nations--including Britain, Canada, and Germany--met in Oslo in February and agreed to work towards a global ban on cluster bombs over the next year, Belgium became the first nation to make investing in companies that produce the weapons a crime.

Under the new Belgian law, the government would publish a list of manufacturers and "prohibit banks from offering credit to cluster bomb makers and from owning shares or bonds in these companies."

I think everyone can agree this is real progress. Not for the Americans:

The United States was noticeably absent from the Oslo conference (as were China and Russia). This is not surprising, since the Bush Administration continues to move towards a renewed arms race. At this critical moment when we are pushing Iraq and North Korea to abandon any ambitions to become a nuclear power, the Bush Administration is attempting to build "the first new nuclear warhead produced by the United States in more than 20 years." (This after the Administration's effort to build a nuclear "bunker buster" weapon was thwarted by the normally "see no evil hear no evil" Republican Congress).

WHOLE STORY: The Nation

Big Oil and Health Canada; together we're...getting cancer?

Big Oil and Health Canada; together we're strong?

A small Alberta community is rallying behind a local doctor they believe is being silenced by Health Canada because he raised concerns about high rates of cancer near the booming oilsands.

Health Canada officials have filed a complaint against Dr. John O'Connor.

O'Connor alerted the media last year to what he believed was a disproportionately high incidence of colon, liver, blood and bile-duct cancers in patients who live in Fort Chipewyan, a small community downstream from major petroleum refineries.

In filing the complaint against O'Connor with the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons, Health Canada did not explain the action, but said the doctor was causing undue alarm.

Meanwhile, physicians who work alongside O'Connor in Fort Chipewyan believe officials are targeting their colleague because his comments potentially threaten billions of dollars of investment in the province's oilsands.

"I am absolutely shocked that they would treat a physicians of this calibre like this. There's a deliberate attempt to beat him down or shut him up," the area's head nurse, George MacDonald, said.

WHOLE STORY: CBC

War in Afghanistan; also lost?

The world loves America, sort of:

Thousands of angry demonstrators took to the streets in Afghanistan yesterday after US forces were involved in a panicked shooting which left 16 civilians dead and 23 injured.

Local people as well as a number of Afghan officials accused the American marines of opening fire indiscriminately following a suicide bomb attack on their convoy in Nangarhar province.

With protests continuing to grow, and the police coming under attack from stone- throwing crowds, the US military maintained that the casualties were the victims of a "complex ambush" in which gunmen had carried out a synchronised attack following the blast in which a marine was injured.

US propaganda machine; it get's so tiring...

But Mohammad Khan Katawazi, the district chief of Shinwar district, where the deaths took place, insisted that they "treated every car and person along the highway as a potential attacker" as they attempted to speed away from the scene of the explosion.

Abdul Ghafour and Noor Agha Zwak, speaking on behalf of the Nangarhar police and government, and Zemeri Bashary, the Interior Ministry spokesman in Kabul, also claimed the deaths and injuries were due to American fire.

Ahah, so who do we believe? Afghan officials or, the occupiers?

Four months ago, British Royal Marines were also accused of shooting bystanders after their convoy had been hit by a roadside bomb in Kandahar. On that occasion the British authorities maintained that most of those shot had been trying to prevent the convoy from leaving the scene.

The killings in Nangarhar came just a few days after a suicide bombing at Bagram airbase, near Kabul, during a visit by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, killing nine people.

Both the Taliban and Nato forces in Afghanistan had said that a comparative lull in fighting during the winter would be followed by renewed campaigning in the spring.

Yesterday, as crowds blocked roads shouting "death to America" and "death to Karzai", some of those who were injured related their version of what had happened.

Yeah, they really love the American "liberators".

"They were firing everywhere, and they even opened fire on 14 to 15 vehicles passing on the highway," said 38-year-old Tur Gul, who was shot twice in his right hand. "They opened fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot." Some said that they were fired upon although they took care to get out of the way of the departing convoy.

Tur Gul complains because he was mistakenly shot in his hand? Shame on him!

Whole artile: Independent

Wesley Clark: US planned to take out seven countries in five years (video)

See it yourself:




General Wesley Clarke about the US plans for future wars:

About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in.

He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.”
I said, “Well, you’re too busy.”
He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”

This was on or about the 20th of September.

I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?”
He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.”

So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.

I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?”

And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Wesley Clark about the Middle East and the America's interests in the Middle East:

The truth is, about the Middle East is, had there been no oil there, it would be like Africa. Nobody is threatening to intervene in Africa. The problem is the opposite. We keep asking for people to intervene and stop [the wars in Africa].

There's no question that the presence of petroleum throughout the [Middle East] has sparked great power involvement. Whether that was the specific motivation for the coup or not, I can't tell you. But there was definitely -- there's always been this attitude that somehow we could intervene and use force in the region.

Whole Article: Democracy Now!

Authority deficit or authority fetish?

I always enjoy reading “the Economist”. I have been carrying the 21^st edition of “the world in 2007” (not the weekly magazine, but the special New Year edition) around for a while now and today, on the ferry from Vancouver to Victoria, I took the time to read an article by Peter David (foreign editor of the Economist), “The authority deficit”.

In short, not a bad presentation of what’s been going on in the world when it comes to a shift in powers; some level of authority formerly controlled by states, alliances of states and their multilateral agreements (think nuclear proliferation), seem to have been more equally distributed to people, often represented by NGOs. No problem there.

But the opening paragraph bothered me, especially the following:

“[Less authority] makes the world less orderly, and therefore less safe.”

Peter David does nothing to backup this statement, on the contrary. On page 17 he writes that the “alternative could be worse”.

“Steadying the international order by renewing its institutions will be hard [..]. But restoring the authority of the state will be a good deal harder, and possibly undesirable too. The danger is that governments seeking to restore their fading authority will [..] choke off the free movement of ideas, capital and labour that have lately made the world such a disorderly place-and so many people so much more prosperous and free. Better, perhaps, not to try.”

So what is he suggesting, a prosperous and more free world is the result of ideas, capital and labour, yet another result is that we are less safe?

It seems like Peter’s nostalgia for those good old times (like so manu Conservtives), when authority meant something, and this seems to confuse his conservative brain. When you profess that the world today is less safe than say 50 years ago, then it's wise to back it up with some facts.

The world is not a pretty place. It never has been, but progress has been made. Yes, people, some of them united in NGOs, have played a big role in reducing the empowerment of the traditional powers. But it’s time to start seeing this as a good thing, not a loss of some sort. Unless, of course, you’re writing for a conservative magazine like “the Economist”.

We're in 2007 now, it’s time to let the fetish for power, finally, go.

- Article: Subscription only
- Interview with Peter David with a similar message

Poverty under George W. Bush

Poverty in the United States of America: It rose drammatically under George W(ar) Bush.

The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 (£2,500) a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.

Whole Story: Independent

Europe: Fake bloggers soon to be 'named and shamed'

In Europe consumer protection is still king:

Hotels, restaurants and online shops that post glowing reviews about themselves under false identities could face criminal prosecution under new rules that come into force next year.

Businesses which write fake blog entries or create whole wesbites purporting to be from customers will fall foul of a European directive banning them from “falsely representing oneself as a consumer”.

From December 31, when the change becomes law in the UK, they can be named and shamed by trading standards or taken to court.

Source: Times Online

Conservatives and Big Oil - dealings behind closed doors

Do you want to know the connections between the Conservatives and Big Oil? Too bad; meetings are behind closed doors.

A handful of industry chief executives met behind closed doors with Environment Minister John Baird, Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn to discuss the Conservative government’s new green agenda.

“As [Mr. Baird] reiterated, the Prime Minister wants to do this in a way that doesn’t harm the economy, and that recognizes that capital stock and technology take some time to bring into place,” said Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The two-hour meeting was part of the government’s consultations ahead of firming up policy to deal with Canada’s growing greenhouse gas emissions. The three ministers held a series of private meetings in Calgary, where there’s rising anxiety about how aggressive the government will get to boost its environmental credentials at the expense of oilpatch growth plans, particularly in the oilsands.

But why behind closed doors? What's there to hide?

Mr. Baird described the meeting as “a good exchange of ideas. We learned more about some of the challenges, some of the opportunities.”

Yeah, it's better not to confuse the people with "exchanges of good ideas". Transparency, Conservative style.

Read the full article: Royal Dutch Shell PLC

Also at the meeting: Tim Hearn, CEO of Imperial Oil Ltd.; Clive Mather, CEO of Shell Canada Ltd.; Randy Eresman, CEO of En Cana Corp.; Hal Kvisley, CEO of Trans Canada Corp.; Steve Snyder, CEO of Trans Alta Corp.

Minister John Baird on YouTube: he doesn't seem to know the essential basics about the environment portfolio

Ask people on the street who John Baird is, and probably, many still won't know. But things could be worse, and when it comes to the current Conservatives, they almost always are.

Ask John Baird what the difference is between carbon tax and carbon trading, and he won't have the answer.
(he could just look here and here)

Ask John Baird which countries have a carbon tax today, and he won't have the answer.
(he could just look here)

Ask John Baird how much his department has spend the past year, and he won't know.

Meet John Baird, the "all new" Conservative Minister of Environment for the New (so-called) Government. And be amazed:



John Baird on YouTube

Iraq slaughter takes more than 132 lives

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with a ton of explosives hidden beneath cooking oil, canned food and bags of flour obliterated a Baghdad food market on Saturday, killing at least 132 people in one of the most fearsome attacks in the capital since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Guardian : Scores Killed in Baghdad Market Blast

Exxon's "hidden" product placement; in PM Harper's speech.

Wondering where it was "hidden" yesterday? Well, when Harper was talking about how to curb greenhouse gas emissions, this is what he had to say:

"I don't think realistically we can tell Canadians stop driving your car, stop going to work, turn the heat off in the winter; these are not realistic solutions."

Yes, less driving is, according to our prime minister Stephen Harper, not realistic. Given the booming economy, Canadians should probably be driving more, realistically speaking of course.

Wonder why PM Stephen Harper supports driving more?

Exxon Mobile supports Conservatives, so Conservatives support Exxon; it's THAT simple. So where does the environment fit in? Well, it doesn't. Don't expect the Conservatives to move on the environment any faster. After almost a year of so-called "governing", the first environmentally friendly move from the CPOC still has to be made; let's call it "getting things done" liberal style.

So is PM Harper corrupt? Legally maybe hard to prove - but morally? Without a doubt.

Resources:
- Toronto Star
- DeSmogBlog.com
- CBC

Doomsday, Gary Lunn and the first Dutch Traffic Warning; Are Conservatives Connecting the Dots?

I'm in the Netherlands for two weeks and right now I'm in the middle of a severe storm:

The traffic authorities issued a warning to motorists not to use the roads if at all possible, in the first such use of the "traffic alarm" since it was instituted in November 2005.

The weather bureau said the storm, with southwesterly winds gusting up to 130 kilometers an hour, was the worst since October 2002. The storm, which follows a southwesterly storm a week ago, was expected to peak in the late afternoon. (source)

And I have to say; weather is seriously bad; winds of up to 130 km/hour are blowing through the country. Dutch train stations are closed, many flights at Schiphol airport are canceled; it looks like it's going to be the worst storm since 1990.

In international news, scientist are warning us (for the first time) for the world's two biggest threats. And guess what, terrorism is not one of them:

"As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on earth," said Professor Hawking (source).

Well, and then there's Gary Lunn. He uses the argument of global warming as a reason to expand nuclear activity on Canadian soil.

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn yesterday said a $238 million green science fund, to be distributed over four years, will help pay for the research and development of technologies such as [...] nuclear energy.

First of all, nuclear energy is not a clean energy source. Secondly, I don't think Canada is in a "catch 22" like the US (Iraq, "should I stay or should I go now"); there are good other options that are clean and less dangerous.

We're in the 21st century, the century of sustainability. Let's walk the talk and do the math; nuclear technology is at the base of generating nuclear waste and nuclear arsenal, both contributing to the world's most important threats as outlined by Professor Hawkin.

There are many green solutions out there; this century is the (only?) time to do things right. With or without the Conservatives?

PMS is going green, Chrysler isn't, Exxon never will be

The CBC "doesn't get it";
(see picture)



Harper is trying really hard to look green.
(see picture)




But Chrysler is still in full denial.

Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has launched a fierce attack on "quasi-hysterical Europeans" and their "Chicken Little" attitudes to global warming.
(more)

I also ran into this site about Exxon Secrets and how the oil industry continuously buys supports for the "global warming does not cause climate change", similar to the "tobacco does not cause cancer" message.


More on
Chrysler: BBC News
Exxon: Exxon Secrets

Blair finds manner of Saddam hanging 'completely wrong': office

Blair finally condemns the execution of Saddam Hussein:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair believes the manner of Saddam Hussein's execution was "completely wrong", his Downing Street office said Sunday.

Blair has been under fire for refusing to speak on the subject, and criticism of his silence mounted after both his deputy and his finance minister condemned the hanging of the deposed Iraqi dictator as "deplorable" and "completely unacceptable".

In his first engagement since returning from a New Year holiday in Miami, Blair said Friday he would speak about the execution next week.

"In terms of what he will say next week, we don't think there are going to be any surprises on where he stands," a spokeswoman said, while declining to say when and how Blair would make his comments on Saddam's hanging.

"He supports the inquiry by the Iraqi authorities. He does believe that the manner of execution was completely wrong, but this shouldn't lead us to forget the crimes that Saddam committed, including the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis."

The execution was carried out at the start of a key holiday while leaked mobile phone video footage showed Saddam being taunted as he stood on the gallows, prompting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to order a probe.

Britain's finance minister Gordon Brown condemned the execution of the toppled president in an interview broadcast Sunday, becoming the highest-ranking government member to speak out so far.

Whole story: France24

U.S. To Give Abbas Forces $86 Mln Amid Power Struggle

Bush administration's love for regime change?

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Bush administration will provide $86 million to help security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, expanding U.S. involvement in his struggle with Hamas, according to documents seen on Friday.

[...]

Hamas lawmaker Mushir al-Masri accused Washington of helping to mount a "coup'' against the Hamas-led government. ``We demand that President Abbas reject this American policy, which feeds the culture of divisions among the Palestinian people,'' he said.

Abbas's office had no immediate comment.

Whole Story: New York Times

Saddam execution turned him into a martyr: Mubarak

Timing is everything:

"People are executed all over the world, but what happened in Baghdad on the first day of Eid al-Adha was unthinkable. I didn't believe it was happening," [Mubarak] said.

"In the end, no one will ever forget the circumstances and the way in which Saddam was executed. They turned him into a martyr, and the problems in Iraq remained."

Saddam's hanging has sparked outrage among Sunni Muslims, for taking place on the first day of one of the most important Muslim holidays, and for the grainy video released afterward that showed he was taunted and mocked as he stood on the gallows.

WHOLE STORY: FRANCE24

Related:
- Wikipedia: Eid ul-Adha

Unemployment down to 6.1% in December

It looks like NOW is the time to raise minimum wage:

The Canadian economy added more jobs than expected in December, helping push the national unemployment rate back down to a 30-year low of 6.1 per cent.

WHOLE STORY: CBC: Unemployment down to 6.1% in December

Jason Cherniak doesn't know what progressive means

Last Tuesday was an interesting day in the blogosphere, and I learned a couple of things too:

- the left in Canada is alive and kicking
- self proclaimed progressive blogger Jason Cherniak doesn't know what progressive means

Ever since I landed in Canada (in 2002 I moved from the Netherlands to Canada) I have tried to get used to the complete different political landscape here. What struck me most (and still does) is the consent to corporate bias by the MSM and the public at large.

In the Netherlands I considered myself a moderate; I’ve voted for the Dutch Liberal Party (currently more right than ever), but also for D66 and PVDA (labour) en GroenLinks (green left), depending on their platforms and the reputation of their leader (lijsttrekker). But nothing extreme, at least not for Dutch standards. Trying to translate this to Canadian politics, I’m often way of the political radar…(on the left that is)

Tuesday made something very clear to me; it’s not the Canadian people that are different, but it’s those in government who represent us (or, in the case of Mr. Cherniak, those who have aspirations to do so in the future).

The Toronto Star’s article, suggesting targeted solutions for a failed promise by parliament to root out poverty, is indeed a sincere action plan. Implementing it, even partially, will benefit the poor and, perhaps, root out poverty in Canada all together.

But JC had non of it. Nothing else than a “Say No to $10 minimum wage”. According to his blog, proposing $10 minimum wage is “crazy” because a raise of 25% would, well read it yourself:

“To me, the likely result seems obvious - one in four minimum wage workers will be fired.”

Of course Mr. Cherniak does not give references for his ridiculous statement. Apart from some conservative thinktank propaganda talking points (similar to those of the Fraser Institute), no serious data is given. The important reason being; there isn’t any.

Mr. Cherniak assumes, in short, that currently everything is fine; the economy is booming, and the low minimum wage is not a real problem.

Well Mr. Cherniak, everything is not fine. Indeed, the economy is booming. Top incomes of the business elite (and those of the political elite) have been rising exponentially, but, sadly enough, the very poor are still, very poor.

It should be clear by now that a booming economy does NOT automatically result in less poverty, on the contrary. And the reason is simple; it’s because the ideology, as presented by Cherniak and the Fraser Institute is seriously flawed. The wealth of a booming economy does not automatically trickle down to the bottom of the chain. Other powers (did you ever hear of corporate greed, Mr. Cherniak?) keep workers exploited and in poverty.

We know our government has to power to change this. Now is the time we demand from parliament to keep their so far failed promise.

Raising minimum wage substantially is not the complete answer. But it’s start, and it’s long overdue.

But it’s also time we tell Mr. Cherniak that consenting to the current status quo by using flawed Fraser Institute rhetoric is called conservative. I don’t have problems with Conservatives; everybody their own voice, vote, religion, or blog – that what makes democracy great! But I do find it problematic when someone claims to be progressive, when in reality he’s a conservative in disguise. Such a person has passed the level of hypocrisy palatable to me, and given the fierce reaction to his blog (and a dozen other blog entries), many other progressive bloggers feel the same way.

If Mr. Cherniak thinks he’s progressive, then he doesn’t understand what progressive means.