Keepitsimple

I watched Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth the other day and I must admit - there was one piece of information that I did not know. We're always hearing about how the Oil and Gas industry are the main culprits but Gore clearly stated that 30% of all GHG come from the burning of forests - that would be South America and Africa. Yet I don't see this reflected in the per-capita emissions. As a matter of fact, the "notes" in the Wikipedia per-capita say that the US emmissions are based on Natural Gas. That would appear to mean that other countries are based on something else.....so I'm not sure how to interpret them on a comparative basis. But burning forests = 30% of all man-made GHG. Seems like a good place to start reducing.

finally relented and watched "An Inconvenient Truth" this evening. Although I suspected it was an alarmist film, I wanted to actually see it before being critical. I'm not a denyer - we have an issue that we have to respectfully and realistically address and more importantly, adapt to. Putting aside the obvious selectivity and embellishment which I grant is somewhat necessary (in Gore's eyes) to get people's attention, I have one major criticism and one observation: Criticism: Gore lays an hour of groundwork for his major thrust - that sea levels are likely to rise by 20 feet and there will be hundreds of millions of displaced people around the world. This is not just a passing comment in the film - everything leads up to this "fact". So if you are someone who is just getting your first taste of Global Warming - it's major panic - death and disaster all around. IPCC says that sea levels will likely rise somewhere between 6 - 18 inches over the next 100 years. Again, this is not a minor part of the film - it appears to be the major focus of the film and is so "over the top" that it removes any credibility that could have been established. Observation: In the film, Gore criticizes Bush Senior for not listening but says nothing at all about Bill Clinton, for whom he served as VP where presumably, he should have been able to make a difference. If Gore can make a movie last year that says that sea levels are going to rise by 20 feet and then this year, scientists say they are likely to rise by 6-18 inches over the next century - what would you think of Al Gore's credibility? Oh, and why do you think he never mentioned (criticized) Bill Clinton?

February 3, 2007 Lost in translation By MICHAEL COREN There is an elephant sitting in the corner of the room and the political elites are pretending it isn't there. Or to put it more directly, the Tory attack ads on Stephane Dion are missing the point. The most obvious problem about the leader of the Liberal party is that his English is appalling and he is often entirely unintelligible. There. That which we are not supposed to mention. It's okay to lambaste English-Canadian politicians for their lack of French, even if they represent completely English-speaking ridings, but never point out that a man who wants to rule Canada and speak to and for 20 million Anglophones has an often-impenetrable accent and a bewildering vocabulary. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...pf-3514697.html

Sure enough - not a peep out of the CBC or The Star......don't know it it showed up anywhere else.

I'll be waiting for The Star and CBC to report this as a significant achievement - after all, the Conservatives are going to take away people's rights.

Nato has apparently created a "pool" of large transport planes from which Nato nations can draw from when needed. I doubt the pool will have anything available when you really need it for large undertakings - because then everyone will need them at the same time. My point is that Canada will likely be able to add a couple of aircraft to the pool so that we can make "rental" money when we don't have an active mission. In other words, not only will be have our own aircraft and not have to rent then - but we can now be in a position to "rent" to other nations. Those rental revenues will help to offset some of the cost. There is an intangible here as well - it further shows the world that we are a country that pulls its own weight - that we are serious about trying to make a difference in the world.

Or Billy Cunningham in Burnaby Douglas. Link Ohhh, that's right. He lost the election! Or John Bethel in Edmonton East, Dave Muti in Calgary Northeast, Ruby Dhalla in Brampton-Springdale. Link All of these people were appointed as candidates over the objections of *more* than a dozen members in each of their respective ridings. The Conservatives compare themselves with the Liberals over ethical issues because the contrast is so stark! Or Wajid Khan in Mississauga....oh no - he's a Conservative.

Gee, he's smart. His comments on the effects of Kyoto - if fully implemented - are still accurate today. I don't think he feels any different about the concept of Kyoto as it is now structured.....but as he now says "The Science has evolved". After all, that letter was written 5 years ago and there was a lot of division in the ranks of scientists. There are still lots of questions - regardless of what the True Believers say. I do believe that the Conservatives will proceed in a cautious, but substantial way. I also think that we will be a major player in trying to negotiate a more realistic post-2012 Kyoto approach.

Tempest in a Teapot. Rob Anders has won the riding by a large margin 4 times in a row. "Nearly a Dozen" could have been said more precisely as "eleven" but I guess it doesn't sound as big. These eleven are not MP's - they are riding association party members and while I don't have numbers, I'll bet there are at least 100 members in the riding - perhaps someone has the number.....so it sounds like a little group of stink-makers with a friend for a lawyer.

It never ceases to amaze me that every single soldier and leader in the military is conservative down to the bone. Do people get recruited by the army based on a how-conservative-you-are test? Given how conservative the Canadian military is, is it really OUR military, or the Conservative's military? If you were given order to catch and kill 10 thousand "communists", would you even stop to think about it? You know, Chile wasn't a police state until a similarly conservative General Pinochet led a coup d'état deposing the democratically-elected President Salvador and established a military government (killing 30 thousand + "socialists" along the way). Pakistan wasn't a police state either until General Musharraf did the same. And then there is Colonel Gaddafi and another military coup. And then General Idi Amin and his military government...Need I continue? Obviously, there are no political questions asked when selecting who is "fit" for the military. If there really are no Liberals in the military, you should give a lot of careful thought as to why that is the case.

Perhaps some of us should rephrase our criticsms and instead of saying they did nothing - we should say they were ineffective. It really doesn't matter. The point is that the Liberals did a lot of talking, a lot of consulting, a lot of conferences, bold planning... but they didn't take any real concrete action - the BC rain forest is a prime example - 6 years. They just didn't get the job done on a variety of issues. It's really the Chretien approach - tell them what they want to hear but we'll do whatever we want. I think Martin might have tried to fix things but he was just couldn't make a decision - wanted to please all of the people all of the time, so for very different reasons, he did nothing. As for Dion, there's a reason that Canadians know nothing about this guy - he was in the government for 10 years and he was viewed as a little nerd - and because he didn't have the leadership skills - he never tried to be anything more. He fell into the leadership role by accident. I hope they do better next time because Canada needs a strong and effective opposition.

The whole idea of RRSP's is to start saving when you are young and have the advantage of "time" work for you. If you're just getting into the workforce at age 20 and you can find a way of putting $500 per year in an RRSP, it would well be worth it on two fronts. First, because you are young, you can be a little more of a risk taker. Investing in a solid diversified mutual fund will over time, return you an average of 10-12% per year - there are plenty of them out there. There will be good years and there will be not-so-good ones but over time, it evens out. Even at 10% average return, your money doubles over 7 years so that $500 is worth $16,000 after 35 years (Age 55). If you can put $500 only until you are 30 years old and then do nothing until you're 65 you'll have accumulated a nest egg of about $250,000 and you will have only invested for 10 years! If you can find a way to sock away $1000 a year, you'll have $500,000.....and don't forget you'll get a tax refund to help you out. That is the beauty of starting young and letting time accumulate your fortune. It can be done. 1) Start young 2) Pick an established Mutual Fund. 3) Let time work for you (the doubling factor - 500 x2 =1000. 1000 x2 = 2000. 2000 x2 = 4000x2=8000x2=16,000) The later you start - the less the "doubling factor comes into play. And don't panic when the stock market takes a hit as it always does eventually. Time is on your side and it always recovers.

As the article says - this had been in the works for the last 6 years and BC had put aside funding last February. This is a worthy investment that had been langusihing (the article says) for some time. The timing could be construed as suspect but was this a good investment, or not? I think it was - and if politics pushed the decision - who really cares? We had years of the Liberals SAYING they were committed the environment, but did nothing. Now we have a government who the media and "activists" say is NOT committed to the environment and we have some action. Things are starting to get done and I don't care if they are motivated by politics. Now having said that, I acknowledge that the Conservatives should not be in power. It's not fair damn it - this is a Liberal country. If Liberals were back in power, decisions would not be made because of politics - they would simply do the right thing. Liberals truly care about the environment. They care about us - they know what's best for us. I miss them so much. OK, OK, I'm being a little facetious.

No, you seem to be missing the point, the CPC cannot even mention the environment by way of chastizing the Liberals. How quick it seems the CPC are forgetting their miserable Clean Air Act, which was by far worse for the environment than the Liberals EPA. If not for the NDP calling them on it, they would've done nothing. The Liberal media was fixated with the Clean Air Act's date of 2050 but in fact, their plan called for short term and long term targets to be announced early in the new year. They are still on target for doing that and until they are announced - people can't really evaluate the Clean Air Act. Here's an excerpt from Rona Ambrose's speech in Nairobi from November: We are acting immediately to ensure Canadian industry meets short, medium and long-term emission reductions targets. Our plan recognizes the importance of a long-term commitment to reducing emissions. We will continue to take into account the well-researched advice of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, and will work to reduce Canada's absolute emissions by up to 65 per cent by 2050. But our plan also recognizes the need for urgent action so that we can finally make progress towards our 2012 international obligations. Early in the New Year, Canada will finally have short term targets and timelines for all major industry sectors. Link: Link is at http://www.ec.gc.ca/minister/speeches/2006/061115_s_e.htm

An important element of Income Trusts does not get much play - and Flaherty is very worried about it. It's complicated, so he doesn't talk much about it to avoid confusion. In general, here it is. Income Trusts are really supposed to be used for "mature" companies - simplistically for example, a company makes a product and has invested in a plant but has no intention of making other products. The product will eventually run it's course and that will be the end of it - they'll sell off the remaining assets and it's over. Everybody at the company makes a fat salary and they account for their day-to-day operating costs but all the profit gets paid out to the shareholders. That way, they don't have to pay any corporate tax - the shareholders pay tax on the dividends they receive. Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than corporate tax......but the BIG PROBLEM is that if the company plays honestly, there is little or no money for R & D and no incentive to upgrade equipment or services. If you buy stock at $100 per share, you get steady revenue but how about the investors who are left holding the bag when the company decides that it's going to close the doors - their stock value plummets (that's another issue). Now, apply this to the companies who were thinking of converting to Income Trusts - phone companies, Banks. They were thinking of spinning off parts of their business. With no incentive for R & D or customer improvements - who ends up suffering? Consumers, that's who. And why? Becuase the big companies are greedy and will try and find any way to avoid paying corporate tax....so the line between what is, and what is not an Income Trust will be very blurry. What I've presented is very simplistic but this relates to Jim Flaherty's comments that "Canada will end up with a hollowed out core of businesses" or something to that effect. A very messy situation that I think had to be addressed. I feel sorry for those who genuine lost money but in reality, they had very poor Financial advice, if any for a number of reasons: 1) Regardless of Harper's promise, they didn't buy stock ahead of the Conservatives win because nobody could know that they would actually form the government. 2) Again, regardless of Harper's promise, the Conservatives only formed a fragile minority government. With Income Trusts being a contentious issue - why gamble with your retirement funds? 3) And for those who went ahead, any portfolio should not be too heavily weighted in any one category - especially retirement funds. Some people got greedy. 4) Finally, most Income Trusts declined by no more than 15% and you only "lost" that amount if you sold.....and if you hung onto the stock, the distributions (monthly/quarterly payments) continued to be paid - just like before.

So if a group of conservatives refuse to say the media is anti Liberal, it means the media has a Liberal bias.....? Is that sort of like the test to see if a person is a witch? eh?

This thought just came to me - for those who don't believe there is Liberal bias in the media. The best demonstration can be found on any of the Political Blogs including this one. I have yet to see a single topic raised where the poster accuses the general media of being systemically anti-Liberal.

Dion is the leader of an opposition party who, rightly or wrongly, could find themselves back in power in the near future. Yet the media has chosen not to analyse and critique Dion's past performance and ability to lead. If the media had at least provided an ongoing balanced review, these ads would not be necessary. Just imagine if someone like Stephane Dion had been elected as leader of the Conservatives....can you imagine the unrelenting attacks that the media would carry out? There is plenty of ammunition.

I'm sure I'll get pilloried for this but I think it's important - from a long term perspective - to direct tax relief to two parent families - traditional if you like. If we can start to reverse the trend of both family members working their buns off and not finding the time to raise a family, it will help society as a whole. If the tax system, through income-splitting, child benefits, etc. can keep a mother or father home for extended periods - that would be a tremendous help. We need to increase our population growth - it's negative right now if you factor out New Canadians who when they arrive, are still mostly in traditional family mode. I have no doubt though, that following generations of formerly new Canadians will experience the same "drag" on starting and growing a family - economic realities and keeping up with the Jones' or Leungs or Hibabs. As for single parent families - I don't have all the answers but obviously, that would have to be addressed differently. Divorces are always messy but there is usually child-support. Out-of-wedlock often falls into provincial government support like welfare. It's all very messy.

Why be involved at all if they think it is a provincial responsibility? Why make that promise it was a lie? This is a good question to ask and goes to the heart of roles and responsibilities for Healthcare. The Provinces are responsible for delivering healthcare services - each province oversees it's own healthcare budget and the delivery of services through their doctors and hospitals - we have the honour of George Smitherman looking after us here in Ontario. The Federal government has responsibility for the Canada Health Act, regulations which guarantee essential basics in Healthcare and which the provinces are obligated to adhere to - so the Feds act as sort of a cop. For individuals across Canada, we all are in the hands of our Provincial systems. I suppose there are cases like SARS and HEPB where on a national scale, there would/should be some Federal coordination but in general, the Feds do not get involved in the delivery of Healthcare services, perhaps with the exception of Military Hospitals (if we have any). So....most of your Healthacre funding comes from your provincial taxes with about an additional 15% coming from the feds through "transfer payments". On top of that, the feds us the "Equalization Fund" to give additional funds to "hane not" provinces so that they can ensure that their Healthcare and Education are roughly equivalent to other provinces. As for your comment on Wait Times "Why make that promise - it was a lie?".....I think that's a little dramatic but it's easy to be cynical in today's politics. I don't think it's unreasonable for the Feds (Liberal or Conservative) to earnestly try to work with the Provinces to try and get some common measurements so we can see how we can improve wait times. The problem is that each Province moves at a fdifferent pace and each has their own priorities in terms of, for example, the top 5 "treatments" that they want to focus on.......but I think it's important that we try to move forward and the feds can help by being a non-biased facilitator to the provinces share information with each other.

It doesn't have to be Left vs. Right but what can you do when members of the Left blindly say "we should be Peacekeepers". We did do a reasonable job but that's history. In most parts of the world, there is no peace to keep.....so our role is to be peace-makers. It's dirty work - and most of us would strongly prefer that we didn't have to be in the midst of such fighting - but when you are facing an unprincipled enemy, it's either create security for the oppressed or go home and let the "bad guys" have their way. I hope that one day, there will be a role for Peacekeepers but that day does not appear to be coming soon. In the meantime, we should be proud of our volunteer military who believe so deeply in what they are doing in Afghanistan.

I get the Toronto Star (I'm a masochist) and the Toronto Sun. Once in a while I'll pick up the National Post. The Sun's a crappy little paper but they have some good columnists and although they tend to lean right, I find they can be pretty balanced. I try to watch Don Newman at 5:00 when I can. I used to watch Mike Duffy but can't stand his fill-in (I forget her name). I also check the internet news headlines on yahoo.ca. If I miss anything of substance, it usually pops up on a BLOG. As with all news, no matter what the source, you have to filter out any partisanship and if something really gets you going, it's best to do a bit of research to put it all in context.

Harper's did his fair share of tooting about health-care too (well, before he was elected anyway). Funny how when the issue is something people morally agree with, the federal government should start fixing the healthcare problem. But when it's something with which you morally disagree, it's the province's responsibility. yeah, okay. Harper didn't do any tooting - he recognizes that it's almost entirely a Provincial area. Harper has hitched his wagon to Wait Times because that's more a question of coordination and a bit of leadership.....but wait times can't really be solved by the Federal Government - all they can do is encourage the provinces to focus on key areas and provide some sort of national measuring criteria to see how provinces are doing. These criteria are not meant to be a way of bashing those provinces who lag behind...but to examine the successes of individual provinces and see if they can be duplicated elsewhere. Canada has a wonderful opportunity because with 10 provinces trying different things, it's almost like having a Healthcare R & D. Focusing on wait times is a good way for the federal government to be actively involved without "dictating" to the provinces how healthcare should be delivered. Let's be frank, our healthcare issues are not going to be resolved magically by the federal government - it will take innovation on behalf of the provinces and some behind-the-scenes coordination by the feds.

Fine, even from a health-care perspective, isn't it supposed to be a 50-50 issue between the federal and provincial government? A lot of people mistakenly think that's the case. It was 50-50 when Medicare started way back in ???? but was gradually reduced as the Provinces ability to deliver matured and the federal government shifted "tax points" to the provinces so they could collect enough revenue. The Federal government now contributes somewhere in the area of 15% (fifteen) of Healthcare funding and yes, our constitution indicates that the delivery of Healthcare services is a Provincial responsibility. That's why it was so galling to have Paul Martin running around saying he was "fixing Healthcare for a generation".

Don't fool yourself, if most media did not fully support Harper, he would have never made it to the PMs chair. Asper of CanWest went campaigning with Harper in the last election, not with Martin, and all major papers and TV channels were on Harper's side (with The Star and the CBC being the only ones that did not endorse him). Perhaps the Post does offer more support to Harper than other media.....but other reputable papers really had no choice but to support Harper - mostly to "clean up" Ottawa - not necessarily for all their policies. This remark sounds partisan but it's not meant to be....rightly or wrongly, there was too much immoral stink to the Liberals. The Star, God bless 'em, held their nose and stuck by their buddies to the end.