Monthly Archives: December 2005

Manitoba Selkirk riding… Vote for this man

Posted on by

Ed Schreyer, former premier of Manitoba and Governor General of Canada impressed me today.

I was on one of my favourite sites… The Oil Drum and ran across this article referencing this recent essay written by Ed Shreyer who is now apparently “on the Board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development”.

It is quite possibly the most lucid and historically cognoscente article on encouraging sustainable living, that I have ever read.

Please, read it.

If only all politicians were this… aware.

Here is an exerpt:

After the transition from the ancient Bronze Age to the Iron Age and the decline of Greco-Roman civilization, came the medieval economy of primitive local dependency and self-reliance…. the world evolved even if it appeared to be in steady state. For a thousand years or more, the population was kept in check by natural attrition. Yet, despite a very slow evolution of methods of production by the late Middle Ages blending into early modern times in Europe especially (circa 1500), there was a return of patterns of excessive resource use (and environmental disaster)…. This could be said of Canada and the US even 400 years later — until about 1970.

The rational politics of all this suggests that there is a prudent and practical course of action. It is to adopt the precautionary principle that in the face of growing evidence, but lacking absolute certainty, the most justifiable course is to conserve and attenuate the use of nonrenewables while working hard to develop the renewables.

Does it really matter so much if the cup is half full or half empty? The far, far more important thing we must do is to accept the real possibility that beyond a certain point, global capacity to produce will decline and fail to meet demand.

These are the kinds of ideas and sober realities we need more of in Parliament. I hope the people of the Selkirk-Interlake realise this and vote for Mr. Schreyer.

World Junior Hockey, Sport imitates life?

Posted on by

As the World Junior Hockey Championship continues in Vancouver, I can’t help but use it for my own twisted political means… err, I mean as a interesting way to revisit a continuing issue.

That issue is, America’s International “image”, particularly with it’s closest neighbour, and traditional ally, Canada.

We all know that as the Iraq War was launched in 2003, popularity of US foreign policy within the populations of it’s traditional allies abroad plummeted.

So what about now? Well, take this one bit of anecdotal evidence….

The United States and Sweden teams played an exhibition game on December 22nd at Bear Mountain Arena in Victoria, B.C.

The United States beat Sweden 3-2 but according to my father-in-law who took some excellent action shots... the 2800+ people who packed in the small arena were much more excited when Sweden scored, than when the United States won the game.

He was surprised…why root for the Swedes? If anything, the US had the “local edge” with a Vancouver Canuck draftpick as their goaltender.

No, thankfully it didn’t get to the point of booing the US Anthem, (which both our countries are guilty of) but I think it is a valid observation that hockey fans would rather cheer for a relatively unknown squad of Swedes, than a group of guys that are likely much more familiar and much closer to home.

Anti-Americanism is a bad word… especially during Election time here in Canada. I don’t think this approaches anything that obscene… but I do think it signals something deeper and more dangerous. Since President George W. Bush came to power, but mainly since the Iraq War… and with added trade irritants like Softwood Lumber, I think our friendship with America has taken a terrible beating, and if we’re not careful, it will do irreparable damage to our relationship. As a Canadian, I see this as mainly as an American problem… but I also see us having a role to play in repairing the damage that has been done. We must not allow ourselves to be caught in a downward spiral for we have an incredibly important economic, political and social ally in our neighbour to the south.

Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a molehill… or an ice rink out if a zamboni (huh?).

But it wouldn’t hurt us Canadians to remember that what happens in the White House means little when there are two teams facing off on the ice. As you sit, watching the Tournament on TSN, use it perhaps to remind yourself that there are many wonderful things in the United States of America, and this hockey team is one great demonstration of that… so put out a cheer for those excellent American juniors… they deserve it, they earned it… though when it’s Canada at the opposite end, I think it’d be fair to offer polite silence instead. ;)

Merry Christmas… I’m back

Posted on by

After a long and restful (well, in a computing sense anyway) break, I’m back on the blogging trails.

I hope everyone out there had a wonderful Christmas… I know I did.

And with that… it’s back to the grind… expect regular updates to resume shortly. :)

Law trumps Bush Politics

Posted on by

Here’s something you don’t hear enough of lately… strong Conservative voices speaking truth about the current US Administration’s policies rather than simply towing the party line.

Today, the 4th Circuit Court of a Appeal rapped George Bush’s knuckles for saying one thing yet doing another.

The issue at hand is the holding of suspected terrorist Jose Padilla. Apparently, the US 4th Circuit Court is none too happy that they were brought the case, not because they were an institute of law, but rather because the US Administration thought they’d have an easy in to get their way.

And why wouldn’t the Administration think so? After all, one of the judges on the court, and the man who wrote todays ruling, is former Supreme Court Justice shortlistee Michael Luttig.

Yet Mr. Luttig had this to say today:

….In a plea that was notable given that the government had held Padilla militarily for three and a half years and that the Supreme Court was expected within only days either to deny certiorari or to assume jurisdiction over the case for eventual disposition on the merits, the government urged that we act as expeditiously as possible to authorize the transfer [to a civilian court]. The government styled its motion as an “emergency application,” but it provided no explanation as to what comprised the asserted exigency.

… They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror — an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant.

So what Mr. Luttig says so precisely, as only a judge can… is that by asking the 4th Circuit to please hurry up and transfer Padilla to civilian court,, they basically negate the whole reason they had for holding Padilla, in military custody, without trial, for 3.5 years.

In other words… the War on Terror is just another sham. Like the “War on Drugs” before it… what was once a cause borne out of grim necessity has deteriorated into a cover for massive military and pork-barrel spending… as well as (and perhaps uniquely)dangerous political power.

Mr. Luttig’s revelations should set off alarms in the minds of many conservatives. In effect, he’s taken the boogeyman out the closet, held it up to the light, and announced it to be a fraud. After all this time the boogeyman the US Administration has been pushing us to believe in has just been it’s own reflection in a mirror.

Jim Harris Jim Harris where art thou Jim Harris?

Posted on by

If you had been trying to “follow” the Green Party in the media over the last 3 weeks you would have found it very difficult. The coverage has been, at best minimal and at worst, totally non-existant.

Some may say that the blame lies in the media establishment, and I’m sure there is an element of that, however, if the Green Party and Jim Harris want to make their voices heard, then maybe they should first try TALKING A LITTLE LOUDER!

In my riding, I have yet to see a Green Party sign or banner. Indeed, if I didn’t, by coincidence, happen to have a friend how is active in with the Green Party in my riding, I doubt I’d even know who the current candidate is.

There was talk last week about “infighting” with the Green Party ranks and while there is certainly some of that going on, the level of disruption it is causing is, I think being somewhat overblown by the media. They suggest that this sort of infighting is somehow unique to the Green Party, when we have the well publicized feuds within the Conservative and Liberal parties to compare against.

THe difference might be, though, that the Green Party, because of it’s new found public wealth is having some growing pains. Perhaps that $1 million isn’t quite flowing to where it should be going. One of the appeals of the Greens has always been that it was a truly community minded party… focused on sustainable, community living. Well, if all the money is being tied up by the party leadership under Jim Harris then doesn’t that go against some of the principals of the party?

Yesterday the Greens were in the news as Jim Harris went to the heart of the oilpatch (and the center of much of his parties strength last election) to deliver his energy platform. It was carried well in the major news outlets.. but that is also the first time Harris and the Greens were mentioned in nearly a week.. that just isn’t good enough.

My point is this, if the Green Party wants to do better in this election than in the last then they had better start raising their profile. TV Commercials and radio ads are nice, but can be very expensive. They need to start with the basics. Get some Green Party signs out there! Extend a goal to the riding associations to make sure their candidate is in the local papers at least 3 times EVERY WEEK. Jim Harris should be on the news or in the national papers at least 2 to 3 times a week from now until the end of the campaign. No doubt, these are ambitious goals, but if something is going to come of all the griping by the Greens for coverage, a lot of that work is going to have to be done by the Greens itself.