With Parliament scheduled to resume sitting in two weeks, the marriage squawking has begun.
The closed minds that reside over at Defend Marriage Canada are gearing up their lobbying machine to try and persude MPs to reopen the debate.
The fact that McVety (and other narrow minded twits) are gearing up their campaigns of ignorance is no surprise. The so called "traditional marriage" crowd keep on bleating about how allowing same-sex couples to marry is "undermining" society (an assertion that makes no sense to me) and spewing all sorts of assertions about GLBT people and their "lifestyle" that are based not in reality, but in the fantasyland of their stereotypes.
As Equal Marriage Canada points out, OVER 10,000 MARRIAGE LICENCES ISSUED - Why won't Mr. Harper move on?. The world hasn't ended, nor is it likely to, because a few thousand same-sex couples wish to marry. The simple fact is that it is a small percentage of the population, and in the long run, same-gender marriages will account for an equally small percentage of the population.
Over the next fourteen days or so, expect to hear the level of bleating from the neo-Christian right to wind up to full panic. If nothing else, it should turn out to be something quasi humorous to watch - especially now that there's actually a few years of marriage licenses out there now, without any catastrophic collapse of society.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Sunday, September 03, 2006
The Right WingNutoSphere Has Lost It
Michael Coren says we should nuke Iran.
The suggestion is offensive to start with, but it is all the more so coming from someone who proclaims their faith as a "Christian" at every possible turn. Of course, Mr. Coren is cut from the typical thin, brittle cloth that makes up most of the Neo/Theo Con-iverse these days, so we shouldn't be surprised that his response to Iranian posturing is so thuggish.
He attempts to "moderate" his position as follows:
What Mr. Coren fails to appreciate is that there is no such thing as a "tactical use" of nuclear weapons - especially not in the long-distance approach to warfare that the US uses. As both Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated, nukes are "area of effect" weapons that don't differentiate between civilian and military victims.
Further, Coren has missed a fundamental point about the Iranian government - especially in its current incarnation - namely that they are posturing for a reason. They perceive that with the United States tied up in wars on two fronts already (Iraq and Afghanistan), and North Korea rattling its sabre regularly, they stand to gain status in the region by being seen as the "defenders of Islam" by many people. (Why the heck else do you think they might be supporting Hezbollah?)
Using that logic, the world can - and perhaps should - have moved a long time ago to disarm the United States. The only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons in war, and keepers of the largest stockpile of so-called "WMD"s in the world - everything from nuclear weapons to biological and chemical agents.
I'm not saying I like what I hear coming out of Iran, but I am not fool enough to take it as literally as both Mr. Coren and other Neo/Theo-Con politicians seems to be doing.
I do know enough to recognize that bombing any country "back into the stone age" with conventional or nuclear weapons will not serve the collective interests of "western powers".
The suggestion is offensive to start with, but it is all the more so coming from someone who proclaims their faith as a "Christian" at every possible turn. Of course, Mr. Coren is cut from the typical thin, brittle cloth that makes up most of the Neo/Theo Con-iverse these days, so we shouldn't be surprised that his response to Iranian posturing is so thuggish.
He attempts to "moderate" his position as follows:
Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal.
What Mr. Coren fails to appreciate is that there is no such thing as a "tactical use" of nuclear weapons - especially not in the long-distance approach to warfare that the US uses. As both Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated, nukes are "area of effect" weapons that don't differentiate between civilian and military victims.
Further, Coren has missed a fundamental point about the Iranian government - especially in its current incarnation - namely that they are posturing for a reason. They perceive that with the United States tied up in wars on two fronts already (Iraq and Afghanistan), and North Korea rattling its sabre regularly, they stand to gain status in the region by being seen as the "defenders of Islam" by many people. (Why the heck else do you think they might be supporting Hezbollah?)
Its motives are beyond question, its capability equally so. It is spending billions of dollars on a whole range of anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-personnel missiles, rockets and ballistic weapons:
Using that logic, the world can - and perhaps should - have moved a long time ago to disarm the United States. The only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons in war, and keepers of the largest stockpile of so-called "WMD"s in the world - everything from nuclear weapons to biological and chemical agents.
I'm not saying I like what I hear coming out of Iran, but I am not fool enough to take it as literally as both Mr. Coren and other Neo/Theo-Con politicians seems to be doing.
I do know enough to recognize that bombing any country "back into the stone age" with conventional or nuclear weapons will not serve the collective interests of "western powers".
Lougheed on Ralph's Mess
Former Premier Peter Lougheed has been quite circumspect in refraining from comment on Ralph Klein's government over the years. However, now that change is afoot in the Alberta PC party, he is speaking out:
Here and here.
They are both lengthy articles (for current media standards), but worth the time to read. Lougheed remains head and shoulders above the current lot of politicians running this province, and his foresight and vision continue to be miles ahead of any likely successors to Ralph.
[Update]:
A bit of further digging turned up the full copy of the interview On the IRPP's website.
[/Update]
Here and here.
They are both lengthy articles (for current media standards), but worth the time to read. Lougheed remains head and shoulders above the current lot of politicians running this province, and his foresight and vision continue to be miles ahead of any likely successors to Ralph.
[Update]:
A bit of further digging turned up the full copy of the interview On the IRPP's website.
[/Update]
Bullying As Therapy - Part I
The internet never quite forgets. For those of us who track the more insane ravings of the truly unhinged, Google's "cache" is an amazingly useful tool.
Late last week, an amazingly unhinged screed was posted on the NARTH website. By the end of the day yesterday, it had been yanked off NARTH's website, apparently after they got a significant amount of heat.
The screed was a reaction to a private school in Oakland, CA taking specific steps with respect to how they handle cross-gender identified students.
Perhaps what is most surprising is the emergence in the recent years of parents who are acknowledging and actively supporting their children who claim a cross-gender identity. On one hand, I commend the parents for being open to a surprising twist in life; on the other hand, I worry a little about whether this is setting things up for a reverse problem later in life should the child conclude that they are not transgender after all. However, that is a complex psychological topic for further investigation on my part.
The
original post on NARTH quotes Dr. Berger as follows:
I can guess that NARTH received a lot of static for posting that in the first place - it is uniquely unhinged, especially for someone who claims to be a psychiatrist in the first place. At the very least, he should be professionally censured for several reasons - not the least of which is essentially advocating bullying as an acceptable form of socialization in the schoolyard.
Looking further at what he writes, I'm going to have to dissect it assertion by assertion:
No, this is not garbage. Most people's first long term memories anchor somewhere between the ages of 3 and 5 years (a few people like me have memories that are clear and go back further, but the average seems to be around 3 to 5 years of age). The anecdotal evidence from transgender people in their adult years is quite clear that their sense of being 'boy' or 'girl' - and in the "wrong body" goes back to their earliest memories, whether or not they were able to express those feelings at the time.
I dare say that just about every transsexual that is now living in their chosen gender would disagree with this entire assertion. The psychological aspects of gender identity are complex and multifaceted. I'm appalled that a man who is ostensibly a trained psychiatrist would dismiss the experiences and feelings of so many people out of hand as "invalid" simply because he is unable to comprehend them.
This is the point where I got quite upset reading this screed. As far as I am concerned, this is nothing more than an incitement to bully children who are different. I didn't appreciate the thugs that decided to make my early school years unpleasant, and it certainly didn't change my behaviour to be something other than it is. I fail to see how applying Berger's reasoning to GLBT students is going to change those students. Will it isolate them? Yes. Make them bitter and resentful? Yes. Change their identity? Highly unlikely.
Berger then ends his tirade with the classic "blame the parents" line:
Few things are dafter than such statements. The claim that GLBT people come out of dysfunctional families is patently false. For every case like that, there are ten that suggest otherwise. How functional - or dysfunctional - a family has little to do with such issues. If that were the case, children raised by gay parents would have a higher probability of turning out gay - they don't.
Berger, along with his "colleagues" in NARTH need to be censured for doing nothing less than putting prospective clients into a form of jeopardy - making it painfully clear that judgement will be a part of their treatment.
Late last week, an amazingly unhinged screed was posted on the NARTH website. By the end of the day yesterday, it had been yanked off NARTH's website, apparently after they got a significant amount of heat.
The screed was a reaction to a private school in Oakland, CA taking specific steps with respect to how they handle cross-gender identified students.
Perhaps what is most surprising is the emergence in the recent years of parents who are acknowledging and actively supporting their children who claim a cross-gender identity. On one hand, I commend the parents for being open to a surprising twist in life; on the other hand, I worry a little about whether this is setting things up for a reverse problem later in life should the child conclude that they are not transgender after all. However, that is a complex psychological topic for further investigation on my part.
The
original post on NARTH quotes Dr. Berger as follows:
Dr. Berger reacted to the San Francisco Chronicle article by observing:
I think that a lot of this is nonsense and is being pushed by people who have an agenda to disrupt society in order to further some perverted goals such as the acceptance of pedophilia, and, of course, the attempted "normalization" of homosexuality.
From a medical/scientific perspective, the notion of a child of five being "transgendered" is absolute garbage. This is a child wanting attention and wanting to play "dress-up," with an added layer of unhappiness.
That essentially is the issue for most of these children. They are unhappy. They don't have a "biological" based "gender identity disorder." They are unhappy; they have an envy of certain aspects of the opposite sex role -- and wish to pursuit it for as long as they can.
Tolerant parents, tolerant schools, tolerant societies, might let them get away with it. No one should be surprised that avant-garde California or sun-drenched Florida should be places where the tolerance is highest.
The notion that a person is really someone of the opposite sex "trapped in the wrong body" is poetic stupidity. It doesn't exist in reality. A person wishing to change their external manifestations to appear to be a person of the opposite sex is someone very unhappy with being their "real" sex and/or believing in some idealized fantasy of how much better it is to be of the opposite sex.
We don't treat distorted fantasies with mutilating surgery.
Here in cold Canada, I often talk with mothers of small children who routinely complain about how difficult it is to get their children dressed in the winter in the multiple layers of clothing they need to go off to school. I suggest to them that they make it clear to their children that they will leave home -- or that the school bus will come -- at such-and-such time, and they will go whether they are ready or not. I suggest that going just one day in their pajamas or underwear will be enough to "cure" them of their procrastination.
I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex -- but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings.
On the contrary, don't interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.
It is a mistake for various interfering, ignorant, and biased busybodies to try to "counsel" the other children into accepting the abnormal. It is very healthy to be able to draw the line between what is healthy and what is sick.
I am sure that if we looked carefully, we could find some significant personal issues and aberrations in the parents of these children. These children don't have such problems without there having been some groundwork laid by their parents in some way.
Dr Joseph Berger, FRCP, DABPN, DLFAPA
I can guess that NARTH received a lot of static for posting that in the first place - it is uniquely unhinged, especially for someone who claims to be a psychiatrist in the first place. At the very least, he should be professionally censured for several reasons - not the least of which is essentially advocating bullying as an acceptable form of socialization in the schoolyard.
Looking further at what he writes, I'm going to have to dissect it assertion by assertion:
From a medical/scientific perspective, the notion of a child of five being "transgendered" is absolute garbage. This is a child wanting attention and wanting to play "dress-up," with an added layer of unhappiness.
No, this is not garbage. Most people's first long term memories anchor somewhere between the ages of 3 and 5 years (a few people like me have memories that are clear and go back further, but the average seems to be around 3 to 5 years of age). The anecdotal evidence from transgender people in their adult years is quite clear that their sense of being 'boy' or 'girl' - and in the "wrong body" goes back to their earliest memories, whether or not they were able to express those feelings at the time.
The notion that a person is really someone of the opposite sex "trapped in the wrong body" is poetic stupidity. It doesn't exist in reality. A person wishing to change their external manifestations to appear to be a person of the opposite sex is someone very unhappy with being their "real" sex and/or believing in some idealized fantasy of how much better it is to be of the opposite sex.
I dare say that just about every transsexual that is now living in their chosen gender would disagree with this entire assertion. The psychological aspects of gender identity are complex and multifaceted. I'm appalled that a man who is ostensibly a trained psychiatrist would dismiss the experiences and feelings of so many people out of hand as "invalid" simply because he is unable to comprehend them.
I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex -- but not counseling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings.
On the contrary, don't interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.
This is the point where I got quite upset reading this screed. As far as I am concerned, this is nothing more than an incitement to bully children who are different. I didn't appreciate the thugs that decided to make my early school years unpleasant, and it certainly didn't change my behaviour to be something other than it is. I fail to see how applying Berger's reasoning to GLBT students is going to change those students. Will it isolate them? Yes. Make them bitter and resentful? Yes. Change their identity? Highly unlikely.
Berger then ends his tirade with the classic "blame the parents" line:
I am sure that if we looked carefully, we could find some significant personal issues and aberrations in the parents of these children. These children don't have such problems without there having been some groundwork laid by their parents in some way.
Few things are dafter than such statements. The claim that GLBT people come out of dysfunctional families is patently false. For every case like that, there are ten that suggest otherwise. How functional - or dysfunctional - a family has little to do with such issues. If that were the case, children raised by gay parents would have a higher probability of turning out gay - they don't.
Berger, along with his "colleagues" in NARTH need to be censured for doing nothing less than putting prospective clients into a form of jeopardy - making it painfully clear that judgement will be a part of their treatment.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Little Stevie Harper's Follies
If this current Parliament wasn't such an irritating gong show, it would almost be funny. Harper's collection of neurosis seems to be in full bloom this past week - and Parliament's fall sitting hasn't even begun.
1. Election Dodging
Knowing that shutting down a program that works when you are a minority government is generally a bad idea, Tony Clement has announced that Vancouver's safe injection site will have a stay of execution until the end of 2007.
In a pathetic attempt to weasel out, we find Mr. Clement arguing:
How convenient, Mr. Weaselmouth. So the research results already in aren't good enough for you? - horsefeathers. You're looking for a way justify shutting something down because you can't get it through your pathetic ideologically addled brain cell that just maybe the evidence is already there.
This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at dodging making a decision, likely because you know the decision that you want to make will be dreadfully unpopular.
2. Softwood Lumber Deals Indicating Soft Negotiators
As the stench from the rotting mass of pulp that is the softwood lumber "deal" that HarperCrit and David Emerson have been bragging about since this spring becomes more putrid, we find them going into defensive mode:
Emerson criticizes opposition parties as "anti-American". Jeepers, every time I hear that phrase I get mad. We're criticizing the "deal" you and Stevie boy made after fellating BushCo, you lying weasels. Asking you morons to stand up for Canada's best interests is what you haven't done. Making a $450 Million donation to BushCo is a criminal abuse of Canadian taxpayers and industry. Of course, to the current bunch of lying morons that call themselves "Conservatives" in this country, anything involving criticizing their dealings with the most dishonest government in the United States since Nixon is immediately "anti American".
Of course, their "good buddies" in Washington are up to their usual tricks, now cranking up the "inspections" that they subject Canadian people and goods crossing the border to, on the grounds that our agricultural products are apparently so infested with pestilence that they are all scared of us crossing their borders. I wonder what they really want this time - another $450 million dollar donation to pay for the Rethuglican election campaigns in 2008?
3. Little Stevie's Private Paramilitary
We can't possibly ignore Harper's announcement of $100 million to arm the Canadian Border Guards.
First of all, my basic comment is that unless the organization of the border guards is being radically changed, they should not be given firearms. These people are fundamentally civilians, just like most of us. Their jobs do not include the training and discipline that is necessary to ensure that firearms are only used when absolutely necessary, but also that there is a clear line of command and accountability for those situations where it is necessary.
If we are going to make the Border Guards an armed service, they should be placed under the wing of either the RCMP or Canadian Military - subject to the training, discipline and respect that those organizations bear. Both the RCMP and the Canadian military services drill into their people some very strict rules around the use of firearms, as well as a generally well enforced sense of respect for the unarmed civilian population that they deal with every day.
No less is required of our border guard, especially if we are going to provide them with firearms. Remember, the vast majority of people are neither armed criminals, nor bent on violence. We are talking about a tiny fraction of people that pose an actual threat.
4. Conservatives Eating Their Futures
Almost on the heels of Garth Turner's survival of an attempt to unseat him, we are treated to yet another insight into the squabbling inside the CPoC. My goodness, a failed candidate is "an embarrassment", yet it is "worthwhile" to protect an MP who called Nelson Mandela "a terrorist"? Not terribly brilliant boys.
Meanwhile, polls aren't painting CPoC in the happiest of lights for a newly minted government. In fact, they seem to be losing ground in key areas like Quebec for their stance on Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
1. Election Dodging
Knowing that shutting down a program that works when you are a minority government is generally a bad idea, Tony Clement has announced that Vancouver's safe injection site will have a stay of execution until the end of 2007.
In a pathetic attempt to weasel out, we find Mr. Clement arguing:
Clement said in a statement that additional studies will be conducted into how supervised injection sites affect crime prevention and treatment before a decision is made.
"Do safe injection sites contribute to lowering drug use and fighting addiction? Right now the only thing the research to date has proven conclusively is drug addicts need more help to get off drugs," said Clement.
"Given the need for more facts, I am unable to approve the current request to extend the Vancouver site for another three and a half years."
How convenient, Mr. Weaselmouth. So the research results already in aren't good enough for you? - horsefeathers. You're looking for a way justify shutting something down because you can't get it through your pathetic ideologically addled brain cell that just maybe the evidence is already there.
This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at dodging making a decision, likely because you know the decision that you want to make will be dreadfully unpopular.
2. Softwood Lumber Deals Indicating Soft Negotiators
As the stench from the rotting mass of pulp that is the softwood lumber "deal" that HarperCrit and David Emerson have been bragging about since this spring becomes more putrid, we find them going into defensive mode:
Emerson criticizes opposition parties as "anti-American". Jeepers, every time I hear that phrase I get mad. We're criticizing the "deal" you and Stevie boy made after fellating BushCo, you lying weasels. Asking you morons to stand up for Canada's best interests is what you haven't done. Making a $450 Million donation to BushCo is a criminal abuse of Canadian taxpayers and industry. Of course, to the current bunch of lying morons that call themselves "Conservatives" in this country, anything involving criticizing their dealings with the most dishonest government in the United States since Nixon is immediately "anti American".
Of course, their "good buddies" in Washington are up to their usual tricks, now cranking up the "inspections" that they subject Canadian people and goods crossing the border to, on the grounds that our agricultural products are apparently so infested with pestilence that they are all scared of us crossing their borders. I wonder what they really want this time - another $450 million dollar donation to pay for the Rethuglican election campaigns in 2008?
3. Little Stevie's Private Paramilitary
We can't possibly ignore Harper's announcement of $100 million to arm the Canadian Border Guards.
First of all, my basic comment is that unless the organization of the border guards is being radically changed, they should not be given firearms. These people are fundamentally civilians, just like most of us. Their jobs do not include the training and discipline that is necessary to ensure that firearms are only used when absolutely necessary, but also that there is a clear line of command and accountability for those situations where it is necessary.
If we are going to make the Border Guards an armed service, they should be placed under the wing of either the RCMP or Canadian Military - subject to the training, discipline and respect that those organizations bear. Both the RCMP and the Canadian military services drill into their people some very strict rules around the use of firearms, as well as a generally well enforced sense of respect for the unarmed civilian population that they deal with every day.
No less is required of our border guard, especially if we are going to provide them with firearms. Remember, the vast majority of people are neither armed criminals, nor bent on violence. We are talking about a tiny fraction of people that pose an actual threat.
4. Conservatives Eating Their Futures
Almost on the heels of Garth Turner's survival of an attempt to unseat him, we are treated to yet another insight into the squabbling inside the CPoC. My goodness, a failed candidate is "an embarrassment", yet it is "worthwhile" to protect an MP who called Nelson Mandela "a terrorist"? Not terribly brilliant boys.
Meanwhile, polls aren't painting CPoC in the happiest of lights for a newly minted government. In fact, they seem to be losing ground in key areas like Quebec for their stance on Israel's invasion of Lebanon.
Bye Ralph - Don't Come Back - Please!
So, Ralph has given his final speech in the legislature (or so we can hope!). The speech itself was more or less the dreck one has come to expect from such speeches, and I won't dwell upon it - it's what he said in a media scrum afterwards that I wish to examine in more detail.
He admitted to having no plan, no clear direction at all for the province in the current boom. That's no real surprise. Once Ralph's Team had the deficit dragon slain (somewhere around about 1999 or so), they lost all sight of what to do. They "refocused" on the next obvious thing to go after, the government's accumulated debt, but as a collective whole, the Klein Tories have been a policy disaster zone. They clearly don't understand anything other than a dollar sign, and at that only if it is incoming revenue - god help them figure out how to spend the government's (our) money wisely. Calgary has lost four hospitals since Ralph took over; some of our oldest, and most beautiful, school buildings have been allowed to decay into near unusability. The health care system has been gutted, with many supporting, non-surgical treatments defunded to the point where the poor and elderly simply cannot afford to have treatment because the "post treatment" recovery requires ongoing treatment that they cannot afford. Our government slashed welfare in half - reducing what a single "employable" recipient receives in a year to just barely $5000 / year, and then claiming that he "preferred to give a hand up instead of a hand out" - of course blindly making the assumption that perpetuating the cycle of poverty somehow gives these people a way out.
To be perfectly frank, I'm quite sure that Ralph never had any kind of "plan" for anything. Ralph succeeded in spite of himself, not because of his wisdom or insight. Throughout his political career, he never demonstrated so much as one iota of insight into what it means to govern - he simply bumbled around, one ham-fisted maneuver to another, and leaving the pieces for the people to pick up as best as they could. Following Dim Jinning's "Just Do It" ethos, he slashed public funding in all sorts of areas, with no regard to how those cuts would impact the services involved, or the clients of those services. He privatized everything he thought he could get away with, and choked the funding for everything else (e.g. schools and health care).
Forming public policy is not merely a matter of reading which way the winds blow that particular day, but rather it is a subtle game of balance and counterbalance. Ralph understood (sort of) that spending too much money was a bad thing, and he clung to it like a shipwrecked sailor to a piece of driftwood in a storm. That he admits he had no plan to deal with the oilsands boom should come as no surprise to any of us - he never had any plans for anything.
Sadly, as Evilscientist notes, the alternatives to replace Klein are no improvement.
He admitted to having no plan, no clear direction at all for the province in the current boom. That's no real surprise. Once Ralph's Team had the deficit dragon slain (somewhere around about 1999 or so), they lost all sight of what to do. They "refocused" on the next obvious thing to go after, the government's accumulated debt, but as a collective whole, the Klein Tories have been a policy disaster zone. They clearly don't understand anything other than a dollar sign, and at that only if it is incoming revenue - god help them figure out how to spend the government's (our) money wisely. Calgary has lost four hospitals since Ralph took over; some of our oldest, and most beautiful, school buildings have been allowed to decay into near unusability. The health care system has been gutted, with many supporting, non-surgical treatments defunded to the point where the poor and elderly simply cannot afford to have treatment because the "post treatment" recovery requires ongoing treatment that they cannot afford. Our government slashed welfare in half - reducing what a single "employable" recipient receives in a year to just barely $5000 / year, and then claiming that he "preferred to give a hand up instead of a hand out" - of course blindly making the assumption that perpetuating the cycle of poverty somehow gives these people a way out.
To be perfectly frank, I'm quite sure that Ralph never had any kind of "plan" for anything. Ralph succeeded in spite of himself, not because of his wisdom or insight. Throughout his political career, he never demonstrated so much as one iota of insight into what it means to govern - he simply bumbled around, one ham-fisted maneuver to another, and leaving the pieces for the people to pick up as best as they could. Following Dim Jinning's "Just Do It" ethos, he slashed public funding in all sorts of areas, with no regard to how those cuts would impact the services involved, or the clients of those services. He privatized everything he thought he could get away with, and choked the funding for everything else (e.g. schools and health care).
Forming public policy is not merely a matter of reading which way the winds blow that particular day, but rather it is a subtle game of balance and counterbalance. Ralph understood (sort of) that spending too much money was a bad thing, and he clung to it like a shipwrecked sailor to a piece of driftwood in a storm. That he admits he had no plan to deal with the oilsands boom should come as no surprise to any of us - he never had any plans for anything.
Sadly, as Evilscientist notes, the alternatives to replace Klein are no improvement.
Light Blogging Days
I'm not hibernating or ignoring the news - I'm caught up in a bunch of all day meetings that make it quite impractical to write anything on the topics that are piling up. I'll get to them over the weekend:
1. Ralph's Retirement - guess what, he admits there's been no planning. (well, duh!)
2. Various funding announcements from Edmonton
3. Little Stevie's Paramilitary (also known as arming the border guards)
4. Bullying as therapy - or so wingnuttia claims
5. ...and a few other random topics
However, I have to prepare for this morning discussions.
1. Ralph's Retirement - guess what, he admits there's been no planning. (well, duh!)
2. Various funding announcements from Edmonton
3. Little Stevie's Paramilitary (also known as arming the border guards)
4. Bullying as therapy - or so wingnuttia claims
5. ...and a few other random topics
However, I have to prepare for this morning discussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)