Keepitsimple

It's kind of tongue-in-cheek - my wife tells me to buy the same tee-shirt. Did not mean it as an insult - probably more of a tribute to your tenacity on the environment.

Here's a presentation on Fusion relating to a project called ITER. Canada is one of several countries participating. Fusion is a benign, non-GHG power source that will be able to wean all countries off of fossil fuels - perhaps not entirely but certainly to replace Coal and Nuclear power. The timeframe for commercial use is anywhere from 30 to 50 years.......but the point is - well before the end of this century, the use of fossil fuels will be marginalized. Massive amounts of clean energy for everyone. It's not Science Fiction. It's happening today. Why do we not hear about the ITER project and another fusion undertaking called the Demo project? Why is Kyoto and the UN not pleading for more scientific research and rapid development of this technology? Why indeed. Fusion Power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power Link to the ITER Project presentation: http://cna.ca/english/Seminar2003/speakers...ons/SMurray.pdf PS: Jdobbin - you started this thread. Usually, people start threads so that other people can share their thoughts. I noticed that half the posts in the thread are yours. There's a tee-shirt I once saw that you might look for - on the front it says "Everyone's entitled to my Opinion".

Here's a quote from the BlogoSphere:

Liberals: Ruby Dhalla and Gerrard Kennedy are a couple of blabbermouths - Kennedy especially - he just talks and talks and will interrupt and talk over whoever he's "debating". Dhalla speaks a mile a minute - non-stop - with no substance. Conservatives: I really didn't like David Tilson in the Schreiber/Mulroney hearings - seems like a nasty man. John Baird always seems to have too many cups of coffee in him and just repeats his mantra-of-the-day. NDP: Jack Layton. Puffed up Peacock. Windbag. Bloc: Who cares.

There have been a number of posts saying they can't see anything wrong with the CBC feeding questions to the Liberals. Keep in mind that the CBC Ombudsman is investigating the matter and it may reswult in disciplinary action. That means that the CBC acknowledges that if indeed this happened, it was unethical - to say the least. Once again, here's the lead-in to the story:

Let's not lose track of what this whole thing is about. It's about whether the government should have paid the $2.1 million because they accused Mulroney of taking bribes on the Airbus deal - it's not supposed to be about whether he paid GST on an unrelated deal or failed to declare his taxes propertly while in the private sector. It's about whether he took bribes while in office - that's why the hearings' mandate is labelled the Airbus something or other.......and that's what the Public Inquiry is supposed to address - did he do anything ethically or criminally wrong when he was Prime Minister. Everything else may be unsavoury - but is largely irrelevant.

Regardless of my other posts - I too have a problem with the cash.......it's stupid and I can't see a reason for it. I've called him a rogue because I do think he's a bit of a slippery character. But here's what's bugged me. His buddies Frank Moores and Gerry Oulette set up GCI - Global Consulting International - a perfectly legal lobbying firm. We know that GCI collected some commissions from Airbus - millions - I'd guess 5 or 6 million - and legally so. Allegations have been made that somehow, Mulroney would get some of that after he left office. If that was true, I'd hazard a guess that it would be well over a million. But my real point is - if all that is true - and that's what all his detractors are saying - then why would he be taking relative pittances in envelopes from Schreiber. He would more correctly be getting the money in envelopes from GCI and nobody would be the wiser. That's why I don't think he got anything out of GCI/Airbus....and whatever he did for the $225,000 Schreiber is completely separate - shady, but separate. He paid tax 6 years later - shady, but it's paid. His guilt as far as I'm concerned is that as a PM or former PM, one must never be perceived as doing something shady or crooked.

There's an elephant in the room that no one talks about.....and that is why Stevie Cameron was on such a vendetta, why she was undercover for the RCMP, and why the CBC/Fifth Estate continued to keep the story alive. Many of the posters on this site know very well how vindictive Chretien and his PMO could be. Shawinigate and the well-documented Chretien/PMO/RCMP vendetta against Francois Beaudoin is a prime example of the Liberal mentality of the day. A full inquiry may very well begin to establish that Chetien or his PMO instructed the RCMP to "dig up as much dirt as possible on Mulroney" and for the CBC to give it full play. That's exactly the type of thing that one would expect of that PMO - back then - we saw their relentless pursuit of poor Mr. Beaudoin. The committee hearings, so far, have uncovered how little was actually known about the workings of Airbus commissions - and it all came pretty well from one source - Stevie Cameron and her ally - the CBC - who for heavens sake, we all know was and to a large degree, still is, a Liberal bastion. Mulroney may be a bit of an Irish rogue but the incessant negativity/criminality hammered home by the CBC and the Fifth Estate over the past 15 years has poisoned any impartial view of these hearings for many of the Mulroney-haters.

No paperwork produced so far but as I said - it makes sense that it WAS for international lobbying because the Liberals under Chretien would have nothing to do with him - and when he left office - his popularity with Canadians was in the basement - but he still had a lot of international connections. There is more than Mulroney's word on this issue. If more investigation is required, he has said that he met with China, Russia, France and I believe some other European countries to discuss the Thyssen vehicle. I'm sure that even 15 years later, there are ways to verify that he indeed took those trips. Many of the things in Mulroney's testament can be at least partially verified because they involve trips and meeting people. Schreiber on the other hand is careful to make statements that can never be verified. I'm not a Mulroney fan - I always thought he had a "sermonizing voice" - like a priest. Although I tend to be a Conservative, I consider Mulroney to be far removed from the current Conservative Party. I'm just sitting back and listening to the testimony and trying to be impartial....and that's tough to do seeing as much of the allegations of 15 years ago - Stevie Cameron/Fifth Estate/CBC - made him out to be a complete crook before he even got to say a word. More and more, it appears those allegations were built on a foundation that was at best, misleading.

Yes...you are correct and I was not accurate in my statement. His first payment - for future services - was accepted when he was still an MP - 1 month prior to becoming a private citizen.....but he explained that the "deal" was for future international consulting services for creating a market for the Thyssen Peacekeeping vehicle - and that in no way is in violation of ethical standards at the time - and possibly even today. It makes complete sense that it would be for non-domestic consulting services because Mulroney would have absolutely no influence with the Chretien Liberals - they hated him - and that's another story unto itself.

I watched the entire testimony and found it for the most part, credible. I still don't like the idea of the cash but as much as $225,000 sounds like a big amount, it's peanuts - especially when viewed as $75,000 per year. Mulroney probably gets $25,000 just for making a dinner speech. And the fact is, Schreiber has already proven to be a complete liar - with most statements under oath at one trial contradicting the "blockbuster" statements in his most recent afadavit. Mulroney's testimony on the other hand, is the first we have heard from him - and there is no reason to believe that his statements are false. There are several elements of Mulroney's testimony that can eventually be backed up - for example - did he make trips to Russia, China and France - surely there are people that he met who can corroborate. Did he deposit money in a NY Safety Deposit box - well, at least the Bank would have a "sign-in" sheet. Did a junior staffer drive Schreiber to Harrington or diod he arrive in a Limousine? These are things that can be corroborated - everything that comes from Schreiber cannot. How convenient. So far, what I have heard is that Mulroney used bad judgement in dealing with Schreiber as a private citizen - after he left office!

I think you may have lost track of where the center is - as have the Liberals. When Labour starts supporting the Liberals, you know that the NDP have lost their way and that the Liberals have drifted Left. The Conservatives have managed to fill some of that void by moving to the Center. The Liberals' hand is being forced by the NDP and Greens. Dion doesn't seem to have the political smarts (Policvies would help) to reach Left without losing his "Center" voters.

Kyoto, Kyoto, Kyoto. How can a government that has been in power less than 2 years ever come even remotely close to Kyoto targets that have to be met one month from now? It's not a question of "we have to try" - it's absolutely ludicrous to even think about it - one month from now!

It's taken me many years to arrive at the conclusion that learning French is a good idea - not to appease Quebec and not necessarily to promote bilingulism - but to broaden our access to and understanding of the world. The beauty of French is that it is one of the "Romantic" languages that has many of it's roots in Latin. Once you have a grasp of French, it's much easier to learn Spanish, Italian and few others. Nothing separates people and culture like a lack of communication. A little background - I was born and raised in Montreal so I know a fair bit about the two solitudes. At a young age, children can pick up a second language relatively easily - and stimulating the speech centers of the brain can only help overall development. I had the opportunity to learn French when I was younger but never really got past a High School understanding. That was ignorance on my part because back in the sixties, Anglophones were still the dominant culture in Montreal and there was no compelling reason to learn French. How sad - a huge opportunity wasted. So.....do we all sit back and assume that English will conquer the world? Finally, after many years, I'm ready to embrace French being given a bit more priority in Canadian schools. There are logistics to deal with - like new Canadians who are already struggling to learn English. I don't have all the answers - and perhaps Bernard Lord can come up with a few - but I am not opposed to French throughout Canada.

Take a look at the countries in the list and tell me this exercise makes any sense at all. 50% of their weighting relates to emission trends. The authors acknowledge that many of the East Bloc countries have positive trends because they closed down so many of their filthy factories with the collapse of state (communist) support. That doesn't change the fact fact that Canada - or the US for that matter, should not be ranked behind China, India, Bulgaria, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, etc, etc. Of course these countries have a positive trend in emissions - but that was because they were so filthy to begin with.....and they really didn't do that much - their state sanctioned economies went to pieces and they had to start over. This whole "ranking" is just another politicization of Kyoto. I'd like to see what the emission trends are like for just the past 5 years - I think we'd all be surprised. It's a known fact that the Europeans reaped a windfall of emission reductions with their cleverly chosen year of 1990 - but they have been treading water or reversing the trends recently. Why aren't annual emissions published on an annual and historical basis - so every country can be accountable? Seems like a reasonable thing to do, even if it's delayed by 6-12 months. Wanna guess why such information is not readily available? Actual Rankings by country: http://www.germanwatch.org/ccpi.htm

Flat tax of 15% on everybody and every source of income. Tax exemption on the first $20,000. Sounds fair to me and helps the low-income......but imagine how many tax lawyers, accountants, and revenue Canada people would be out of work - that's why it will never happen. But man, I would just love to see it. How simple.

MD.....I would encourage you to think beyond the first generation of "immigrants"......for indeed. a poor grasp of English or French and some customs that are foreign to us can be a bit unsettling. But think past that - think of the second and third generations - people who for the most part were born in Canada and educated in our school system. Sure, they may look just a little bit different than some of us but they are Canadian, speak like us, dress like us, and are looking to raise families and build lives - just like us. That's really what immigration is all about - that's what Canada is all about.

Funny thing about the "immigrant vote" going to the Liberals by default.....in general, immigrants are almost exclusively Conservative by nature. The first generation of immigrants just haven't been able to get over the brain-washing that the Liberals gave them over the last 15 or so years. When a majority government is constantly accusing a devided right of being intolerant of peoples rights and liberty, its easy to see how they would continue to vote for the party that let them in. Many of our "new" immigrants are not so new anymore. They are also not stupid. More and more, they are starting to see through the power hungry veneer of the rudderless Liberals and are willing to at least consider the Conservatives.....and the more thay kick the tires, the more that they see that they have a lot in common - families, justice, less government - these are Conservative values - but they also just happen to be immigrant values. Second generation immigrants, when they reach voting age, will have a clear conscience in choosing a party. My bets are on Conservatives being able to slowly turn the immigrant ship around and dock it in a harbour that is more in tune with their conservative nature. Time will tell.

I think the honourable NDP member should have simply walked over to the honourable Conservative member and told him that his screen was in her line of sight and she found its contents to be unsettling - and would he please stop. But no - the honourable NDP member had to immediately run to the teacher. By the way - who knows - perhaps the honourable Conservative member simply opened up an email that had an attached link or a video - and the offensive material popped up. We all get questionable material in our INBOX. Mp's are probably inundated with the stuff. I'll bet there are posters on this site that would love to be able to send vile material directly to a Conservative MP's INBOX.

A pessimist would say that Harper is pandering to voters that are left of Center. An optimist would say that the Conservatives are trying to govern for all Canadians. A pragmatist like myself says, I don't really care - because the government is addressing issues from pretty much a central viewpoint. Most times they'll tip a bit right - but sometimes a teeny bit left (oh my god!)......but let's face it, any successful government has to placate their core constituency while extending their reach and broadening their base. You do that by sanding off the rough edges on the right and reaching beyond the center to address concerns of the center left. Harper's playing the pragmatist - slow and steady - incremental, comfortable change.

Sort of goes hand-in-hand with the statistics that show that Toronto has the highest level of dubiously-defined "poverty" in Canada. Of course most New Canadians - especially refugees - have incomes that are below Statistics Canada Low Income Cutoff. These people have come to Canada seeking a new life - they usually start with very little, if anything - and many require social assistance for an extended period until they get settled. While we should take note of the challenges of first generation new Canadians, true poverty should really be measured by the circumstances of second generation Canadians. In other words, did the parents' sacrifices and Canadian support systems result in a second generation that was more capable of fully participating in Canadian society?

An article by Michael Byers in the Toronto Star called Harper "The Small man of Humanity" for taking the approach that all countries should be bound to emission targets. Byers quotes the IPCC as saying that the planet faces "abrupt and irreversible damage" unless greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized by 2015, and then reduced dramatically. He goes on to say that "the consequences of inaction could be truly cataclysmic". If one truly believes these statements, then the world has absolutely no choice but to reach an agreement where all emitters have some degree of binding commitments. Facing Mr. Byers' doomsday scenario of "widespread droughts and floods, increased windstorms, rising sea levels, mass extinctions, and hundreds of millions of people dead or displaced", does it make any sense to exclude India, China and the USA from an agreement - countries that account for two-thirds of all emissions? Stephen Harper has already put a plan in place to reduce GHG by 60% by the year 2050. It would be so very easy for him - to the satisfaction of many voters and the chagrin of critics - to blindly sign on to another Kyoto agreement as the Liberals once did. It would be a risk-free proposition - and he wouldn't be around in 2020 or 2050 to be accountable for the results. So why hasn't he? More and more, people are seeing a man of principle - someone who will do the right thing - even if it is not politically popular. On this issue, Harper has it right. Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/281902

It seems likely that the US presence in Iraq will diminish substantially over the course of the next two years. Don't be surprised if they commit a large number of troops to Afghanistan to make up for the wimpish attitude of our NATO partners. It seems nobody likes a cop nowadays, but everybody hollers for one when there's trouble. If we agree that we can't let Afghanistan's people fall back into what amounts to slavery, and the country into a breeding ground for terrorism, just where is Canada going to stand. Do we leave it to the US to clean it up? Do we leave Afghanistan out in the cold once again? Its called "making a stand on principle - making a stand on what's right". I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

Here's a perfect example of partisan newspaper reporting: On Friday (yesterday), the Toronto Star ran an above-the-fold major headline which read as follows: This wasn't a brief story...the author used every scrap of innuendo, massaged the truth a bit, and soiled Harper's integrity as much as possible. Now we learn from the CBC that Schreiber said he sent a letter to Mulroney because Elmer MacKay suggested Mulroney might raise the issue of Schreiber's pending extradition with Harper. But Harper has said Mulroney never raised the issue of Schreiber's extradition with him at that meeting. Personally, I trust Harper's word over that of Schreiber, the Toronto Star, or the CBC. Link to Star Story: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/281316 Link to CBC Story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/28/...ber-mackay.html

All these graphs use the same scales to "prove" their point. From the graph lines, it looks like the temperature is going way up......but in fact the increments are only in tenths-of-a-degree so the overall change over a hundred years is more like one degree....and it's generally agreed that natural climate change has been causing the temperature to rise by about one degree per century for quite a while......but whether you're a skeptic or an alarmist, we'll all find out in no more than 10 years as to whether there is, or there isn't a problem...because either the temperature will continue to rise, water levels will rise, islands will sink - or nothing much will happen......and regardless of what anyone says, ten years is not going to be a make-or-break period. Keep your eye on those graphs as each year passes.