I’ve got a quick and easy solution for solving the Israel/Palestine debate. Lets take everyone who has publicly declared one “side” of the issue as at fault, and kick them out of their homes. Every single one… We can then shoe-horn them into Israel/Palestine, and give everyone currently occupying that contentious strip of land their pick of the newly vacated homes. Honestly, I can’t see a problem with this solution…
By my estimates at least half of the Arab world would be depopulated… all those Palestinians who profess piety I’m sure would leap at the opportunity to move into the spacious (and ARAB free) palaces of Saudi Arabia; they’d lose Jerusalem but gain Mecca, seems like trading up to me. The Jews and evangelical (read “mentally unstable”) Christians could integrate into the depopulated cultural centres of their respective faiths and find the infrastructure for their beliefs already built, without the fear of terrorism or death. Lastly, about 1-2 billion idiotic demagogues would have to live in a richly deserved Gideon-esque nightmare. (more…)
Censorship and “hate speech” has been the focus of attention of the blogosphere lately, with the usual suspects leading the charge, with Warren Kinsella on the left, and Small Dead Animals on the right. The latest conflagration is over Human Rights tribunals, and their role in trying to stamp-out hate speech. Specifically Ezra Levant, who is widely acknowledged as an idiot, is the subject of these tribunals. Odd how a single person can be used as the foundation for both sides of an argument about hypocrisy…
Anyways, I’ve been watching this back-and-forth for some time. I read a discussion today on America’s Debate which got me thinking (in the shower, where 75% if my blog posts originate.) Are tribunals censorship? Yes. Do they infringe in our rights? Yes. Are they necessary? Absolutely. Racism comes in many shapes and sizes; and the aforementioned discussion on America’s Debate reminded me of the David Rosenzweig murder in 2002. (more…)
Ok, this post has failed twice, so the recap:
Ezra Levant still sucks.
I’ve been working too much to post.
Will start posting again.
Restaurant reviews coming.
When I look for quality food on a cold winter’s night (even if it is still technically fall), I almost always seek out “home cooking” style food. Now, any cuisine can feature home-cooking dishes and styles: a Japanese udon bowl, a simple Italian pasta dish, a hearty “jewish” chicken soup, an english-style breakfast, etc…
When most people think Portugese dining they think Churasqueiria- barbequed or rotisseried chicken. While I love a good chicken as much as the next carnivore, it is really only the window dressing of a much broader (and more inviting) cuisine. Last night I visited “The Market Grille” with a craving for this sort of simple-yet-elegant cooking, and as usual I left satisfied. (more…)
I was flipping through an editorial by Ezra Levant the other day and I caught something which made me chuckle. You see, Ezra Levant is a bottom-scraping Conservative hyperbolist… sort of an Anne Coulter, only with hairer legs and a slightly less libellous attitude. While his tongue may not be as severe, his academic background and intelligence (however poorly applied it may be) delude him into thinking that he has genuine insight.
This latest editorial was a critique of a recent lawsuit being brought to the Supreme Court by Chris Palaire, trying to force the Court to order the Government to create a Kyoto action plan. I agree with Ezra inasmuch as this is a serious stretching of the Court’s jurisprudence; on principle the courts should not legislate, and since none of the previous Acts of Government regarding Kyoto legally oblige the current government to do more than they have done, I don’t see what standing the Court has to intervene. What I find amusing is the bombastic criticism of Kyoto that Levant is engaged in. It’s pretty stupid so I don’t delve in great detail, I will just say this: He proves to the world he is an idiot by defeating his own argument, and I want to share that with you.
Kyoto compliance is impossible without shrinking our economy by one third, and then shrinking it more for every new baby or immigrant, because the amount of carbon we’re allowed to emit never grows.
Where does he get the “one third” number? Well, earlier in the paragraph he points out that Canada’s GDP has increased by 55% since 1990. See, according to Ezra the only way to reduce emissions would be to “undo” all that economic growth and return to our pre-1990 GDP level. What is interesting is that Canada’s emissions haven’t grown by 55% since 1990. Sure they’ve gone up, and the government has done nothing to fight them… but economic growth has outstripped emissions growth, which demonstrates that intensity is not fixed to economic output. Then again, anyone with a grade 9 education should know that… Now, Canada at this point probably cannot meet its Kyoto obligations by 2012, in no small part due to the stalling and fear-mongering that Ezra and his comrades engage in; but the supposition that reducing emissions without reducing GDP is impossible is flat-out idiotic, and I think we should all show Ezra Levant the ‘respect’ that he deserves as a result.
Tonight at 9pm EST America’s Debate Radio launches another show. Each show is generally an hour of news and commentary, an hour (or more) of live phone-calls, and the show closes with some “lighter side” news until midnight. I encourage you to tune in and check it out, or stop by the chat. It’s a good chance to pick up a diverse sample of American opinions. I will of course be watching the Sens lose.
I’ve been getting increasingly disgruntled recently, so it’s time for a good rant. For quite some time I’ve been a staunch defender of governments, and public services in general among my family and friends. The number of times I’ve stood up for city hall, the TTC, and certain specific politicians and programs defies enumeration.
Recently however, it is getting harder for me to be the “Voice of Reason” (any Salon Tabletalk refugees out there?) when it comes to these things. First, this idea that the city should invest $700,000 in new street-food carts to encourage healthier options. The city has been crying poor (with good reason) for years. Under these circumstances a pilot-project with a cost that can only increase, which will achieve marginal short-term gains to fix a problem which is not urgent is appalling; it defies all logic and reason. It’s exactly the sort of thing that tempts me to run for City Counsellor a little bit more each election cycle… still a longshot mind you; but I’m getting closer.
The TTC on the other hand is rapidly losing both my confidence and support. (more…)
Boy, my prognostications are getting better and better aren’t they? I write a post about the Harper/Flaherty response to the infrastructure deficit report issued this week and suggest that it is a part of their plan to encourage the privatization of as many government services/programs as possible, and the very same day they suggest that P3’s are the solution to this problem.
Ok, enough horn-tooting. What’s important here is that the Conservatives’ feathers are showing, and badly. Private-public-partnerships may seem inocuous enough, but they are always the result of politics and/or desperation: governments pursue them either as a way to quietly disengage from the public sector, or to avoid paying for something that they are responsible for and cannot afford. Given the recent massive surpluses announced by the Tories, and projections for matching future windfalls, I think we can eliminate desperation as a motive for encouraging privatization. The fact that he is willing to suggest it so casually and quickly really betrays his motives, and in Harper’s government, you’d better believe that what the Finance Minister wants, the Prime Minister wants as well.
That Flaherty is suggesting them as an out for cities and provinces comes as no surprise… that he would do so less than a day after rejecting a desperate (and justified) funding plea tells me that he doesn’t care if people finally grasp his intentions, or he figures that the issue is low on everyone’s radar and nobody will make the connection. My concern is that he is correct on the latter.
Make no mistake, Flaherty isn’t suggesting P3’s so he can avoid funding costly infrastructure repairs and keep paying for his ill-advised GST cuts, he is suggesting it because he wants it. Once the private sector gets its foot in the government-service door, law, economics and politics make it almost impossible to close them out… and nothing would make Stephen Harper and his ultra-conservative Finance Minister happier.