ReeferMadness

Harper and the Conservatives have been responsible for so many negative, divisive and disgraceful actions that it's hard to keep track of all of them. So, I thought it would be helpful to have a thread to catalogue them. Here is an opening list: - Ran huge deficits caused by ill-advised and ineffective tax cuts - Politicized non-partisan institutions by using or squabbling with the incombents; including the GG, Elections Canada, the PBO, and the SCC - Dramatically increased the centralization of power in the PMO - Interfered in the internal workings of the Senate - Appointed the most partisan and corrupt senators - Gutted environmental rules and laws - Used the CRA to attack environmental groups and charities that disagreed with his policies - Gagged scientists to prevent information that would not support his pro-oil agenda from reaching the public - Defunded pure scientific research in favour of applied science that would help his industry friends - Destroyed scientific documents with no assurance that they were digitized first - After being elected on a platform of accountability, did everything possible to evade accountability - Was found in contempt of parliament - Systematically interfered in the ability of Parliament to perform its duties by withholding information, proroguing parliament and writing omnibus bills so massive they couldn't properly be debated - Undermined democracy by deliberately disenfranchising groups of voters that are not inclined to vote for him and by changing media rules to better allow for negative campaiging - Damaged our international reputation through one-sided support of Israel and against the Palesinians - Damaged our international reputation and climate change efforts by withdrawing from Kyoto. This list isn't even close to being complete. There is a website called shd.ca Note: if you want to debate the actions of Chretien, Wynne, Pierre Trudeau, or anyone else, you're welcome to open a different thread.

"whatever he can do". So, you have no issue with divisive, race-baiting politics, as long as it helps your guys win. Glad we can clear that up. What could possibly be evil about that?

So, you're telling me it's OK to bring in a foreigner with a reputation for dirty, race-baiting politics, as long as you can find a popular issue? I didn't call you a racist, I just pointed out at that this is the type of argument that allows racists to legitimize their views. Maybe you're just somebody who thinks this is an acceptable compromise for a boutique tax cut.

So your contention is that it's just a crazy coincidence that just as Harper brought on a foreigner with a reputation for divisive, race-baiting politics, it becomes a big issue. Is that it? Nobody believes that. Not even you.

The sum total of the disgraceful things Harper has done is well beyond this thread but I'll open another. In the context of this thread, Harper brought in an Australian with a reputation for race-baiting, divisive politics. Suddenly, the substantive issues have been dropped and we're talking about issues (the niqab is one example, the ridiculous barbaric cultural practices hotline is another) that are clearly designed to appeal to peoples' natural tendency towards xenophobia. Is this disgraceful? I guess it depends on your point of view. If you're a thoughtful, open-minded inclusive type (like Mayor Nenshi, for example), this is completely disgraceful. If you're a closet bigot who can use this as an acceptable excuse for your anti-Muslim (or perhaps anti-colored people) views, you might think it's great. You can go ahead and self-identify. Harper (and his Australian crony) are using the niqab and issues like it to play on the worst tendencies of people in this country. And he needs to be told that's not OK.

But do keep deflecting Harper's disgraces with irrelevant things.

Again with the Ontario politics. Maybe you can make a category for provincial politics. Oh, wait. There is one. Maybe the mods can help you find it.

I guess that would be relevant - assuming it's true, assuming the Liberals didn't actually have a point, if Liberals were progressive, if I ever voted Liberal and if I gave a crap about what happened in Ontario. Every time Harper does something disgraceful, you guys run around and look for an example of something someone else did - regardless of whether it's a good comparison or whether there is anything remotely relevant about it. Don't you get tired of defending this morally and ethically bankrupt group of odious people?

or peeing in someone's coffee mug?

It doesn't matter if you agree - the scandals were hurting the Cons. And this helps to erase the stench. The turd that smells the least? This type of politics is way beneath anything that Chretien even dreamed. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for defending a party that would stoop to race baiting to win an election. It's way beyond the pale. And it's working. Feel good about it.

Maybe but they're being played up right now. It distracts people from Conservative scandals and the weak economy. It's disgusting, revolting politics and you know it.

So, the Conservatives hire a guy from Australia who has a reputation for wedge politics, particularly in the area of race baiting. The next thing you know, they're making an issue of the niqab. And then they announce they're stripping the citizenship of some of the Toronto 18. Finally, the "barbaric cultural rituals" hotline. Even by Conservative standards, this is truly disgusting. Harper is pandering to his intolerant, xenophobic base and appealing to the worst in Canadians.

Jeb Bush's words of wisdom on the subject. "Stuff happens". Do right wing politicians go to stupid school?

Of all of the dumb things said about gun laws, the notion that you can just divide the population between "criminals" and "law abiding citizens" deserves a special spot in the stupid hall of fame. Lots of convicted criminals have no history of violence and lots of people who have violent tendencies don't have criminal records. And most people have committed at least one criminal act in their life - but weren't caught.

They just don't know who to bomb.

The thread title is idiotic - someone thought it was a scandal that Suzuki would call out Trudeau. That's only because people who vote for Harper think that everyone who disagrees with Harper (and that's 70% of the country by the way) all think alike.

If you know you're making flawed assumptions, why bother completing the calculation? All you get is nonsense carried to 6 decimal points. Normal people don't make decisions that way and they shouldn't. You can't put everything into a formula in life. There are too many variables and too much uncertainty. If you want to put everything into a formula go live on Spock's planet. Now, you're just being ridiculous. There are lots of valid ways of making decisions that don't involve quantifying everything. Just because a decision isn't based on a formula, that doesn't make it bad. Seriously, you need to get in touch with your human side. Maybe you've spent a bit too much time in Physics class. It may have certain applicability but I would never trust a concept like social welfare to a formula. Yes. People are vague. The world is vague. All of the factors in your precious formulae are constantly changing. If you want your formulae to have even a whiff of validity, you need to perform a huge amount of data gathering (for example on the cost of renewables vs the cost of fossil fuels). Otherwise, it's just a case of garbage in, garbage out. People around here just throw around nonsensical assumptions like the cost of renewables is triple the cost of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel costs jump all over the map and the cost of renewables (particularly solar) have been dropping like a stone over the past 5-10 years. Now, you're completely misrepresenting my position. Either you don't understand or you're debating dishonestly. I believe in the precautionary principle, exercised prudently. In the case of climate change, nobody knows for sure what the exact effects are but the available credible analysis and data suggests that there is a good chance that the effects will be very serious. Further, CO2 is a long lived pollutant so we need a long lead time. Further to that, there are all sorts of demonstrated and possible harms associated with producing and using fossil fuels. In particular, deepwater drilling, fracking and transporting bitumen via tanker are all areas where good information is lacking about the long term consequences of problems. So, the prudent course of action is to move away from fossil fuels in a controlled but determined way. I know there is lots of ambiguity in that logic. Deal with it. No, it's not lost on me at all. I just think the onus should be on polluters to demonstrate that the pollution is safe and sustainable, not the other way around. How about I come and dump raw sewage in your yard? After, all. It's naturally occurring. And it's plant food. Just like CO2. And, when come up with a precise model that shows exactly how it will hurt you and prove beyond a doubt that the economic harm to you is greater than the cost of me paying to process the waste, I'll stop. Are you OK with that?

If you want to spend your time turning this into an equation, I wish you luck. I'm not going to spend time debating it with you for three reasons: 1. I don't think you or anyone else understand the problem well enough and an error in assumptions will render the answer meaningless. In the previous case involving ICE vs electrical engine efficiency, I caught you making flawed assumptions and that was at least a couple of orders of magnitude simpler than this. 2. This isn't the way people make decisions. In my line of work, I've spent a lot of time preparing and making recommendations for senior management and executive. Nobody makes decisions on the basis of the types of functions you're talking about. At best, executives will be guided by analysis (providing they understand it). At worst, as I've observed cynically many times, executives go with their gut instincts and analysis is for peons. 3. It isn't necessary. This problem lends itself to a risk management approach. The available evidence suggests that we have a high probability of there being at least moderate impacts and at least a moderate possibility of there being high impacts. And that's just due to climate change - the fossil fuel industry also causes a whole raft of other environmental and health problems. The logical approach is to eliminate fossil fuels over a period of time, using policy levers available to governments. Here's an excellent example of the type of flawed assumption that is warping your conclusions. Increased average temperature will allow the atmosphere to hold more water vapor (itself a greenhouse gas) which will increase precipitation. But increased precipitation doesn't necessarily translate to more available fresh water - unless your idea of available water includes low lying towns being flooded in the spring. Rivers that flood in the spring and dry up during the summer; or cropland that is flooded in the spring and bone dry in the summer doesn't work for anyone. NASA You can find similar predictions on Environment Canada and EPA websites. You (and someone else around here who I no longer debate) seem to think that you can just apply your own logic and formulae to make your own predictions, regardless of what the people who make their livings studying climate think. If that's how you like to spend your time, go for it. Just please don't waste my time with it.

I'm done responding to you. You don't pay any attention to information, your arguments make no sense and you have a vested interest in the status quo.

Optimal policy? Maximize expected social welfare? Vague and ambiguous? Do you think this is something that you can just plug into one of your physics formulae and come up with the perfect answer? It doesn't work like that. All of the available evidence says that we can live without fossil fuels. But you and others won't accept it. So believe what you will. If things get really bad, to the point where there is large scale starvation, wars are going to break out. Imagine what will happen if nuclear armed states start fighting over limited water. Oh, yeah, and plug that into your optimal calculation too.

You keep trying to quantify everything but you can't. There isn't enough information. And even if you could, then what? What's the cost of an x% probability of the collapse of civilization? When I post costs, it's not to do some cost benefit analysis on moving to renewables. There isn't one set of numbers - the cost of energy varies according to the circumstances that it's produced. People around here repeatedly (and without any evidence) claim that moving to renewables will mean we have to take a huge cut in standard of living. It isn't true.

Oil used to be $2 a barrel but that price never included the cost of pollution because that's an "externality". What's your point? Who is they? Of course, you have a cite to support your contention. Care to share it?

The mass of the car isn't relevant to calculating the energy potential of gasoline vs electricity generated by aluminum. The relative efficiency of the ICE vs electrical motor is. At a base of $50/thousand miles, it would have to rise significantly to make it uneconomical, even compared to the current cost of gasoline. Having a physics degree doesn't make you a scientist anymore than having an economics degree makes Harper an economist. And, in fairness, I said, apparently, you're not a scientist. Maybe you are but it's not apparent to me.

Wow. Your calculations are amazing. Or, at least they would be if they took into account how things work in the real world. So, an electric motor gets roughly 4-4.5 times the usable power out of the same potential compared with an internal combustion engine. And electric cars have much lower maintenance costs because they have many fewer parts systems to worry about (no exhaust system, no ignition system, no fuel pump, electric motor is much simpler and lighter than ICE, etc). Good thing aluminum is the most abundant material in the earth's crust. And don't forget, once the plates are made, they can be recycled forever. Yes. Assuming that 100% of the energy is stored instead of used as it is produced. IOW, assuming the electrical engineers managing the grid are all idiots. And assuming that none of the multitude of other ways of storing power aren't cheaper. And assuming that storage technology never advances. See, this is why I post links instead of doing my own calculations. I'm neither a scientist nor an engineer - but apparently neither are you.

I have an even better idea. As a condition of selling us toxic products that change the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere, the onus should be on oil companies to show that their products will not have negative impacts on us, now or in the future. (this might be particularly difficult for Exxon) The results will be peer reviewed by IPCC climate change. And the same goes for the nuclear industry, the GMO people, and everyone else who wants to introduce new chemicals (or existing chemicals in significantly increased concentrations) or organisms into the environment.