Canadian Cons Desertify Planet with Tar sands, Pull Out of UN Conferen

[gunrutz]

The outrage industry strikes again.

When you run around constantly mad at our government and you are constantly looking for an avenue to express that outrage, you will eventually, and in some cases often, show your outrage over nothing issues like this, and you will look quite silly indeed.

Btw, how do you calculate how many people die from global warming, how exactly do you do that and what social justice organizations are responsible for providing the data? Many more people have died in various famines around the world in my lifetime, but then of course that was all global warming too, or maybe it was imperialism, capitolism, etc etc etc. Im not sure if most of you know that the ultimate end of your view points is communism. It's always there lurking under the surface along with so many unused humanities degrees.

[Shady]

The outrage industry strikes again.

When you run around constantly mad at our government and you are constantly looking for an avenue to express that outrage, you will eventually, and in some cases often, show your outrage over nothing issues like this, and you will look quite silly indeed.

Btw, how do you calculate how many people die from global warming, how exactly do you do that and what social justice organizations are responsible for providing the data? Many more people have died in various famines around the world in my lifetime, but then of course that was all global warming too, or maybe it was imperialism, capitolism, etc etc etc. Im not sure if most of you know that the ultimate end of your view points is communism. It's always there lurking under the surface along with so many unused humanities degrees.

Well said. Millions died from the banning of DDT back a few decades ago, thanks to the same do-gooders behind this initiative. We now know that DDT is perfect ably acceptable to use. But the millions that died don't get a do-over.

[RNG]

The outrage industry strikes again.

Im not sure if most of you know that the ultimate end of your view points is communism. It's always there lurking under the surface along with so many unused humanities degrees.

Well said.

[Keepitsimple]

After flogging the Conservatives on the Front Page, The Toronto Star had this to report at the end of an article on Page 4:

Richard Thomas, an official with the United Nations Institute for Water, Environment and Health, said rumours about Canada’s exit have swirled for past four years.

“Canada has taken a fairly hard line, but not without justification,” he said. “The convention never got much support and has struggled right from the beginning. The convention has been seen as cumbersome, hit hard by gridlock, and it seems to take forever to get any action on the ground.”

Thomas said the U.S. is also signalling its doubts about the treaty.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/28/canada_saw_bureaucracy_and_inefficiency_in_un_convention_on_deserts.html

[CPCFTW]

UN bashers... please form a line to the right - thank you!

Cpc bashers... Plase form a line to the right - thank you!!

Typical lefty.. We can only "bash" the organizations you don't like I suppose.

Edited March 29, 2013 by CPCFTW

[shortlived]

On the surface this sounds like a worthwhile initiative, but really, there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about drought or desertification. Spending millions on conferences and meetings and studies seems a pointless exercise. You need water. That means you need to either be able to change the weather - not likely - or draw in water from elsewhere or underground. This isn't something that requires decades of input from scientists and paper churning UN bureaucrats. Can anyone attest that this organization has ever accomplished or is likely to ever accomplish anything substantial by way of eliminating drought or desertification?

this is not true.

they have been successfully fighting drought and desertification in africa.

what they need is seed/plants, and bodies they don't need money.

you don't plant money in the desert and watch it suddenly go on vacation.

desertification is a global problem, it is happening in the US too, but we have the knowledge of how to reverse it, government are just too lazy or have priorities like buying guns and waging wars to care about it. only those countries that are getting swallowed up are paying any attention. this will be a much greater issues 5 to 10 years from now in the us.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/united-states-at-risk-desertification

its happening in russia too.

the trend will increase as ocean levels increase and global temperatures increase.

the process for reversing this is fairly well known with laying down strong root systems, and escalating higher plant growth, it take decades though.

17 states in the American West are categorized as arid, semi-arid or dry. The areas most affected are in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona and some American Indian reservations.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/what-areas-affected-desertification

most of the arctic is desert, but it is going to turn into a mud/peat slurry over the next 20 or so years.

The praries have been a dust bowl before it could happen again, a huge chunk of the us got hit with a drought last year, some suspect it could happen again..

none the less the desertification cida link was taken down however you should notice that

in

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/MDGpdf/$file/10-206%20MDG%20Report-E.pdf

one of the millenium development goals was MDG 7 or millenium development goal 7... which is I think what the Harper government is trying to get out of. see page 16-17.

Edited March 29, 2013 by shortlived

[RNG]

There have been worse droughts than that of the "dirty thirties" since but our farmers now know much more so we aren't seeing the same dust bowls as before.

And there are several Canadian NGOs who are working in various third world countries helping establish good farming methodologies as well as providing sources of safe drinking water. They are far, far more worthy of charity dollars and/or government funds than the UN is.

[kairos]

Right Wing Conservatives hate the UN like Hitler hated the League of Nations. International Progress gets in the way of their petty self-centered myopic and solipsistic greed and avarice.

Edited March 29, 2013 by kairos

[TimG]

Right Wing Conservatives hate the UN like Hitler hated the League of Nations. International Progress gets in the way of their petty self-centered myopic and solipsistic greed and avarice.

Godwin's law broken!

In any case, Hitler was an anti-capitalist leader of the National Socialist Party. He was as right wing as Tommy Douglas who was also anti-gay and in favour of eugenics.

Edited March 30, 2013 by TimG

[bkwazi(ndp)]

Canadian Cons Desertify Planet with Tar Sands, Pull Out of UN Conference on Combating Drought and Famine

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/28/pol-un-convention-drought-desertification-harper-baird.html

The Harper government is a shameless disgrace.

kairos is there anyway to get into contact with me, my email is [email protected]

[Κairos]

bkwazi: sent an e-mail.

[Κairos]

TIMG: You are showing a complete lack of understanding of that part of history. The name National Socialism had nothing to do with the actual policies. The name of the party is a mere coincidence. The nazis were avowedly against the left, deporting en masse social democrats and communists, and other left leaning intellectuals and those they branded 'anti-socials,' into concentration camps amongst the first victims.

The National Socialists catered to the industrialists, particularly those in the ruhr valley, and also the junkers, the German nobility. Thus their policies were far right wing. They weren't totally laissez faire which they saw capitalism as, but they were a form of totalitarian capitalism controlled via the party, the industrialists and the nobility.

Hitler's promise to the industrialists during the war (and I can dig up the quotation from Speer's book) was that after the war the German economy would switch to a laissez faire capitalist economy for the industrialists.

The only reason the 'National Socialist Party,' became Hitler's party is because he was original a spy for the far-right SA against the leftists such as the NDSAP, he took over the party during a meeting and used it for his own purposes eventually liquidating the SA who he worked for originally only to consolidate his own power.

There is nothing egalitarian or left wing in the NDSAP policies. It was simply not left wing, but far right.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Κairos

[TimG]

There is nothing egalitarian or left wing in the NDSAP policies. It was simply not left wing, but far right.

You need to learn some history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-capitalism

The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences.[144] Nazi propaganda posters in working class districts emphasized anti-capitalism, such as one that said: "The maintenance of a rotten industrial system has nothing to do with nationalism. I can love Germany and hate capitalism."[150]

Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, expressed disdain for capitalism, arguing that it holds nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[151] He opposed free market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy in which community interests would be upheld.[137]

Hitler distrusted capitalism for being unreliable due to its egotism, and he preferred a state-directed economy that is subordinated to the interests of the Volk.[151] Hitler said in 1927, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."[152]

Hitler's views on economics are indistinguishable from the Occupy Wall Street crowd and that makes him clearly left wing by today's standards.

Part of the confusion is that the entire political spectrum has shifted right in 70 years so Hitler was right wing at the time. However, if Hitler were to emerge today he would be most at home with the wannabe authoritarians one the left.

Edited March 30, 2013 by TimG

[PIK]

Maude Barlow is pissed and if she is pissed then it was a good move by harper.

[Shady]

Just as George Bush and America in general did more for AIDS in Africa than any UN resolution, we can do more regarding drought and famine by ourselves than any UN resolution. Conferences discussing the issue doesn't feed people or build irrigation.

[kairos]

TIMG: Once again bullshit: You completely ignored the points I made. Whether he was opposed to laissez faire capitalism at the beginning or not, that doesn't make him left wing, in fact it just makes him further right, that he was for a totalitarian capitalism, as opposed to laissez faire (one again initially, later on he changed his stance on that to a policy of adopting laissez faire capitalism).

Now you've made me actually find Speer's book and dig up quote:

“The creative force not only shapes but also takes what it has shaped
under its wing and directs it. This is
what we generally mean by such phrases as private capital or private property
or private possessions. Therefore the
future will not belong, as the Communist holds, to the communist ideals of equality,
but on the contrary, the farther humanity moves along the road of evolution the
more individualized achievements will be, from which it follows that the
direction of what has been achieved will best be carried out by those who are
themselves responsible for the achievements… The basis for all real higher
development, indeed for the further development of all mankind[will therefore
be found], in the encouragement of private initiative.

When this war has been
decided by our victory, the private initiative of the German economy will enjoy
the greatest era in its history. Think
of all the creative work that will have to be done then! Don’t imagine that all I shall do is set up a
few state construction departments or a few state economic departments…. And
when the great era of German peacetime business has dawned again, then I shall
have only one interest, to put the greatest geniuses in German business to work….
I am grateful to you that you have helped me to meet our [wartime] tasks. But as the expression of my highest
gratitutde I want you to leave here with the assurance that I shall show my
gratitude again and again and that no German will say that I harmed my own
program. That is when I tell you that
after this war German business will experience its greatest boom, perhaps of
all times, then you must take these words as a promise that will one day be
redeemed.

There is no doubt that if we were to lose this war, German private business would not survive. Rather, with the destruction of the entire German people, business would naturally be wiped out also. Not only because our enemies do not want German competition – this is a superficial view- but because fundamental matters are involved. We are involved in
a struggle which will decide between two points of view: Either humanity will be thrown back several
thousand years to a primitive condition, with mass production directed
exclusively by the state, or humanity will continue to develop through the
furthering of private initiative.”

- Adolph Hitler’s address to the
industrialists 1944 quoted from Albert Speer’s: “Inside the Third Reich.”

The Nazi party came into power on anti-left sentiment, frustration at the Socialist Weimar Republic. The far right wing organizations which sought to violently eliminate the left wing socialists of the Weimar Republic were the Sturbateilung (SA) and the Freikorps both of which Hitler was involved with. The Nazi Party under Hitler were never anything resembling socialism, that was merely rhetoric. In fact they were staunch opponents of Socialism and Socialists were the first to end up in the camps.

Now learn some history before you make a bigger fool of yourself on this one. What you hear on FOXNEWs is not history. Depending on wikipedia isn't helping your argument either.

When Hitler came into power in 1933 he had a minority of votes (which of course he called a mandate like some other people no names). In order to gain power Hitler formed a coalition with the the Conservative Party headed by Von Papen who was Hitler's Vice. His Coalition was a right wing coalition, the original "Unite the Right!" He received power through the far right Hindenburg which the far right revanchists idolized for his role on the eastern front during the 1st world war.

Edited March 31, 2013 by kairos

[kairos]

Shady: George Bush's multimillion dollar abstinence programs for Africans only made AIDs worse.

[TimG]

Whether he was opposed to laissez faire capitalism at the beginning or not, that doesn't make him left wing, in fact it just makes him further right

And you are completely missing my point: the definitions of left and right have completely shifted and the only people who would have any interest in the economic policies that Hitler advocated today are the left wing crowd that advocates crony capitalism tightly controlled by the state. e.g. the Quebec Inc model. The fact that Hitler was opposed to communists and pseudo-communists at the time does not make him right wing by today's standards. Edited March 31, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

IMHO, in this modern world of the Internet, the UN is a complete waste of time and money. It is a place where dictators receive credence and bureaucrats receive easy money.

If you can transition programs that pay for immunization, emergency relief and a host of other services that save thousands or even millions of lives then I'm all for it.

When I hear compatriots saying that it's a waste, without even mentioning such things, I really wonder if they know or care about the good work that the UN does, even with its many problems.

[Michael Hardner]

Any time our government thumbs it's nose at a UN initiative, that should be a source of pride for Canadians. The more distance we put between us and that corrupt organization the better.

I looked for a listing of our dues - but could only find 15 years ago that they were at $40. It's a pittance, and to abandon an organization that provides a minimal framework for world order, as well as helping those most in need is just heartless.

[scribblet]

Given the UN's track record for corruption and incompetence and so on it could only be a good that that Canada is taking the bull by the horns and could just create a better way to help countries farm and feed themselves. This would be doing the world a favour.

Canada provided a $283,000 grant to support the convention from 2010 to 2012.

http://www.unac.org/en/link_learn/fact_sheets/funding.asp

Canada, for instance, was assessed 3.11 per cent of the UN regular budget for 1997. This translates into C$44.9 million which was paid in full in January 1997. Developing countries such as Burkina Faso are assessed at 0.01 per cent—the minimum assessment—of the UN budget. In addition to the basic assessment, members are asked to contribute to the costs for peacekeeping operations. In 1996, Canada contributed C$94.9 million to UN peacekeeping efforts—an amount roughly equivalent to its 3.1 per cent assessment.

Edited March 31, 2013 by scribblet

[kairos]

Again ultimate cop-out. How dare Canada accuse the UN of wasting 350,000$ on helping drought and famine, when the Canadian Cons were going to spend millions upon millions of jets we don't need. To try to compensate themselves before the world?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNVYJ_L8VYl0MFFVrxpe_LFFLnUDM7hAhM_UaIEoWbM3gsdhFw https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbsdJO4Lm4JSoI__rRhzJCgPLvx1CcaJO9OgLU9pTWgHPSRVFEww

[kairos]

And you are completely missing my point: the definitions of left and

right have completely shifted and the only people who would have any

interest in the economic policies that Hitler advocated today are the

left wing crowd that advocates crony capitalism tightly controlled by

the state. e.g. the Quebec Inc model. The fact that Hitler was opposed

to communists and pseudo-communists at the time does not make him right

wing by today's standards.

You're a total ideologue who doesn't even understand the difference between Totalitarian Fascism and Social Democracy.

Among the first to go to the camps were the Social Democrats.

[TimG]

You're a total ideologue who doesn't even understand the difference between Totalitarian Fascism and Social Democracy.

Me ideologue? That is rich coming from you. You are the one who broke Godwin's law by making completely inappropriate comparisons between the modern libertarian right and Hitler. I simply pointed out the fact that such comparisons are dumb but if you really wanted to make one the only appropriate comparison is between the economic policies of Hitler and the occupy wall street crowd. Edited March 31, 2013 by TimG

[kairos]

You're hallucinating I never made any comparison to the libertarian right.

You're the delusional fruitcake comparing Occupy Wallstreet to Adolph Hitler.