Does John Baird have an education?

[Charles Anthony]

The personal banter can be thrown back and forth through the PM function. It does not belong in the public discussion forum.

Everybody should call down and stop the inflammatory posts. There is no need for all of the nagging and personal attacks.

[Argus]

Do you notice the the cons have managed to derail this thread quite a few posts back arguing over insignificant semantics?

Who cares if the term Canadian Republican dishevels some? That could only happen if they think they resemble the description and don't want to be found out.

So if I referred to you as ignorant vermin - that wouldn't bother you?

[BubberMiley]

So if I referred to you as ignorant vermin - that wouldn't bother you?

If you were Republican, you wouldn't be offended by the comparison you are making? I disagree with most of their policies, but I find it disgusting that you would smear the GOP like that.

[charter.rights]

So if I referred to you as ignorant vermin - that wouldn't bother you?

No because it isn't true. I suppose some of us just have thicker skin......

[Michael Bluth]

The personal banter can be thrown back and forth through the PM function. It does not belong in the public discussion forum.

Everybody should call down and stop the inflammatory posts. There is no need for all of the nagging and personal attacks.

How about getting a little more specific?

A global warning still allows for use of the term 'The Chin' which should be disallowed just as 'Mr. Dithers' has been. Is there a reason why no public warning has been issued about a personal insult against one Prime Minister as opposed to another?

PMs are not effective for dealing with matters like this. People can block PMs as well as 'pretend' to not read posts from certain posters yet troll and join in on the fray.

Perhaps if the rules were enforced uniformly there would be a little more civility.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Higgly]

The answer to the thread question is simple: Baird has a B.A. in Political Science.

The answer to the implicit questions of how this qualifies him to make scientific judgments regarding global warming, or macro-economic judgments about the effects of anti-pollution policies, is less simple, but hardly difficult: It doesn't.

But then, it is relatively rare for government ministers to have expertise in their portfolio. What they are supposed to have, rather, are good leadership skills (in particular the ability and willingness to identify and defer to the people who do have expertise), and a clear devotion to the public interest above all others. It is on these fronts that discussion of Baird's performance should focus. Does he listen to the scientific consensus, or court the outliers and unpublished conspiracy theorists, when it comes to global warming? Does he act in the public interest, including the interest of future generations, or in the interests of multinational petroleum companies?

Questions about his own education are nearly as irrelevant as poisonous and moronic burbling about David Suzuki. Baird doesn't need to be an expert. He only needs to be a good Environment Minister. If he isn't, it wouldn't matter if he'd done a PhD in climatology.

Finally an answer. I was amazed at the extent to which this thread evolved into an attack on David Suzuki, a guy who stood up for the environment when nobody else would and ended up being labelled a kook for his troubles. And now we all see that he was right all of those years.

The truth is that we have a lot of politicians who are lawyers and damned few who know anything else.

Baird is a guy who keeps popping up when the government needs someone with an ass made of asbestos. Sort of like Jim Flaherty. Not surprisingly they both came out of the Mike Harris government.

Baird has no qualifications to be a minister of the environment. None. Diddly. Not even a specialty in environmental law. The guy is like one of those lapdogs who growls and snarls whenever the doorbell rings.

And his eyes are too close together.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Higgly

[Michael Bluth]

Baird has no qualifications to be a minister of the environment. None. Diddly. Not even a specialty in environmental law. The guy is like one of those lapdogs who growls and snarls whenever the doorbell rings.

And his eyes are too close together.

By your standards we haven't had a qualified Environment Minister.

Rona Ambrose - Bureaucrat, Intergovernmental Affairs

Stephane Dion - Poli. Sci. prof

David Anderson - Foreign Service Officer/basically a career politician

Christine Stewart - Nurse

Sergio Marchi - Urban Planner

Sheila Copps - Career politician.

Still no reason to attack John Baird's looks.

[jdobbin]

Baird has no qualifications to be a minister of the environment. None. Diddly. Not even a specialty in environmental law. The guy is like one of those lapdogs who growls and snarls whenever the doorbell rings.

Wasn't it on Rick Mercer that Merer asked why he was always angry? heh

[Higgly]

By your standards we haven't had a qualified Environment Minister.

Rona Ambrose - Bureaucrat, Intergovernmental Affairs

Stephane Dion - Poli. Sci. prof

David Anderson - Foreign Service Officer/basically a career politician

Christine Stewart - Nurse

Sergio Marchi - Urban Planner

Sheila Copps - Career politician.

Still no reason to attack John Baird's looks.

I'd give Stewart and Marchi some chops, and at least Dion had the brains to understand that the problem neeeded a global solution. The others were not in the seat when the issue became one of critical importance. These were all people who served when a lot of people were calling Suzuki a kook.

Baird's passion is for Harper, and not for the problem.

[Kitchener]

By your standards we haven't had a qualified Environment Minister.

Rona Ambrose - Bureaucrat, Intergovernmental Affairs

Stephane Dion - Poli. Sci. prof

David Anderson - Foreign Service Officer/basically a career politician

Christine Stewart - Nurse

Sergio Marchi - Urban Planner

Sheila Copps - Career politician.

Still no reason to attack John Baird's looks.

Agreed on all fronts.

As to higgly's complaint about all the lawyers: there's actually a lot to be said for having lawyers as Ministers; their training is in seeing how reasons fit together, quite independently of the specific content, and they are likely to have a respect for expertise, for due process, and for publicly mooted reasoning.

[jdobbin]

...there's actually a lot to be said for having lawyers as Ministers; their training is in seeing how reasons fit together, quite independently of the specific content, and they are likely to have a respect for expertise, for due process, and for publicly mooted reasoning.

I have less problem with a person's training as I do their committment. Baird's main problem is that his job is a mixed message one. His government doesn't want to appear to submarine Kyoto while his main task is to do just that. The obstructionism is what was noted in both the Decima and Ipsos poll and it has hurt them.

[Argus]

Wasn't it on Rick Mercer that Merer asked why he was always angry? heh

Maybe Mercer could ask why Dion is always so confused - or why Ralph Goodale is so self-righteous.

[Argus]

I have less problem with a person's training as I do their committment.

You mean like when Dion named his dog Kyoto to show how environmentally conscious he was but opposed doing anything to meet Kyoto in the privacy of cabinet because he thought it would damage the economy?

[jdobbin]

Maybe Mercer could ask why Dion is always so confused - or why Ralph Goodale is so self-righteous.

He probably does. I usually think Mercer picks his comedic fruit from the low hanging branches.

[jdobbin]

You mean like when Dion named his dog Kyoto to show how environmentally conscious he was but opposed doing anything to meet Kyoto in the privacy of cabinet because he thought it would damage the economy?

I think you are confusing his different ministerial jobs. What he did while minister in one area can be totally different from what he did in another area.

For example, I expect a minister to be totally dedicated to his department while they are the minister of it. That means they will fight for that department and its issuess even when it puts them at loggerheads with other departments.

[jbg]

For example, I expect a minister to be totally dedicated to his department while they are the minister of it. That means they will fight for that department and its issuess even when it puts them at loggerheads with other departments.

You make no sense. Dion was Environment Minister, not Minister of External Affairs. He was supposed to be "totally dedicated" to the environment.

Apparently by your standards he was lacking.

[jbg]

You make no sense. Dion was Environment Minister, not Minister of External Affairs. He was supposed to be "totally dedicated" to the environment.

Apparently by your standards he was lacking.

It's annoying to be debating myself.

[Pliny]

It's annoying to be debating myself.

I think Higgly just wants to make sure he is getting his $10 worth out of his annual Liberal membership.

And with that kind of "total dedication" he is qualified to be Minister of Finance.

[Argus]

I think you are confusing his different ministerial jobs. What he did while minister in one area can be totally different from what he did in another area.

For example, I expect a minister to be totally dedicated to his department while they are the minister of it. That means they will fight for that department and its issuess even when it puts them at loggerheads with other departments.

If he did so there's nothing to show for it - at least not in terms of meeting kyoto goals and reducing emissions. So as Iggy said, he "didn't get the job done". Baird is at least getting something done - granted it's not what most of his more vocal critics want, but reducing pollution is at least something.

[jdobbin]

If he did so there's nothing to show for it - at least not in terms of meeting kyoto goals and reducing emissions. So as Iggy said, he "didn't get the job done". Baird is at least getting something done - granted it's not what most of his more vocal critics want, but reducing pollution is at least something.

Baird isn't doing anything except obstructing.

Reducing air and water pollution would have had full political support from all parties if the Tories hadn't tried to tie it to loophole filled intensity emissions policies.

The Liberal Kyoto action was failure. The Tory Kyoto response is a step back from even that. They simply don't believe in the science and approach the subject from that point of view.

[Michael Bluth]

If he did so there's nothing to show for it - at least not in terms of meeting kyoto goals and reducing emissions. So as Iggy said, he "didn't get the job done". Baird is at least getting something done - granted it's not what most of his more vocal critics want, but reducing pollution is at least something.

Baird has accomplished far more as Environment Minister than Dion ever did.

The Liberals and their most sychophantic supporters merely want rhetoric with no action.

Better to promise a lot and produce nothing than to make reasonable promises and produce as promised.

Don't really understand the Liberal mindset on this one.

[Argus]

Baird has accomplished far more as Environment Minister than Dion ever did.

The Liberals and their most sychophantic supporters merely want rhetoric with no action.

Better to promise a lot and produce nothing than to make reasonable promises and produce as promised.

Don't really understand the Liberal mindset on this one.

I do. The Liberals have always been about style over substance. If this were a Liberal government and there was pressure to meet kyoto they'd have paid a billion or two to various corrupt third world dictators to buy emission credits, announced a bunch of measures which sound good but in reality would accomplish little, then proudly told everyone how we had met our Kyoto goals. To the Liberals, it's not about actual accomplishments, it's not about really doing things, it's about how it looks in the papers and on TV. Thus every election they promised daycare, even though they actually never bothered, every election they portrayed themselves as the great champions and defenders of public health care while letting it fall apart. The gun registry was another such program - never actually intended to accomplish anything, but just to sound good in news bytes.

Being a Liberal is about gaining and retaining power, not about getting anything good done.

[Michael Bluth]

I do. The Liberals have always been about style over substance. If this were a Liberal government and there was pressure to meet kyoto they'd have paid a billion or two to various corrupt third world dictators to buy emission credits, announced a bunch of measures which sound good but in reality would accomplish little, then proudly told everyone how we had met our Kyoto goals. To the Liberals, it's not about actual accomplishments, it's not about really doing things, it's about how it looks in the papers and on TV. Thus every election they promised daycare, even though they actually never bothered, every election they portrayed themselves as the great champions and defenders of public health care while letting it fall apart. The gun registry was another such program - never actually intended to accomplish anything, but just to sound good in news bytes.

Being a Liberal is about gaining and retaining power, not about getting anything good done.

Granted the Liberal party has historically focused on optics rather than accomplishments.

I thought they learned their lesson two years ago and were going to focus on actual accomplishments for Canada's.

Wasn't the whole 'three peelers' of the Canadian economy tripe about getting something done?

[Drea]

Referring to "Canadian Republicans" is an oblique way of calling Conservative supporters pro-American in their views. It is personally offensive to conservative supporters. This oblique reference to "Canadian Republicans" is reinforced by charter's retort is his/her post.

"Canadian Republicans" are nothing but American wannabes who would easily sell their soal (sic) for a place in Bush's good book."

As a conservative supporter, I find this camouflaged language very distasteful and it is not conducive to mature discussions.

Grow up conservatives!

You can dish it out, but you can't seem to take it... friggin' babies.

Here are some examples: Out of politeness I will not name the poster(s)

"...spewing your communist propaganda. "

"...you Socialist replace our traditions & cultural beliefs with your Communist Diarrhea.... "

"...Global Warming it's now a religion for the feeble minded."

Grow up and take it or leave the forum.

edited to add... and that is just from ONE post! Holy Cow the rightwing suure gets in a tizzy eh!

Edited December 28, 2007 by Drea

[Drea]

oops double post

Edited December 28, 2007 by Drea