Loonie Toon McGuinty

CALGARY - He's a desperate man searching for a scapegoat.

Faced with 300,000 manufacturing industry job losses in his nine-year reign as Ontario's premier, Dalton McGuinty is frantic for someone or something to blame -- even when the blame defies logic.
Once the economic envy of Canada, Ontario has landed in a gutter of unemployment under McGuinty's Liberal leadership, with this month's Caterpillar locomotive factory closure in London, Ont., the most recent blow.
A government off the rails as far as the economy goes, the man who helped make Ontario a have-not province is clearly desperate -- and Alberta's controversial oilsands make for an easy target.
"If I had my preferences, as to whether we have a rapidly growing oil and gas sector in Western Canada or a lower dollar benefiting Ontario, I'd tell you where I stand -- with a lower dollar."
This was McGuinty's peevish reaction to Alberta Premier Alison Redford asking for Ontario's support on selling the oilsands to the world, given the industry's role as Canada's provider.
It makes economic sense for the East, said Redford, citing a Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) study showing Ontario will enjoy the lion's share of oilsands benefits outside of Alberta.
Over 25 years, Ontario will reap $63 billion in economic spinoffs and 65,000 jobs from the oilsands, with the CERI study indicating B.C. and Quebec enjoying a major fiscal bump from Alberta's boom.
But 65,000 new jobs pales when you've been at the political helm for 300,000 job losses, a hemorrhage that McGuinty's critics blame on liberal policy and a refusal to make Ontario more business friendly.
But not McGuinty. Ask the premier and pro-liberal union leaders, and they lay the blame squarely on the high Canadian dollar, pushed to parity by oilsands. It's all Alberta's fault for being successful.
McGuinty calls the strong Canadian dollar a "petro dollar," having gone from 67 cents in 2003 to parity, making it harder for Ontario to compete with dirt cheap Asian manufacturing markets.
And so the Ontario premier is biting the hand currently feeding his have-not province, where pink slips have become a way of life.
McGuinty will certainly accept the handouts, but he refuses to offer support to an industry which largely funded $2.2 billion in federal equalization payments to Ontario last year alone.
"The only reason the dollar is high, it's a petro dollar, driven by the global demand for oil and gas to be sourced in Western Canada," McGuinty said.
A desperate man, seeking a simple answer, so the votes don't slip away.
And it is a simpleton's excuse, this apparent belief that if the oilsands were to vanish, Ontario would stop looking like the Costa Concordia, with only smooth sailing ahead.
If true, how does McGuinty explain the nearly identical manufacturing industry meltdown taking place just south of Ontario in the U.S., where oilsands and high loonies are not a factor?
There, politicians have no Alberta to blame, and instead must rely on policy and tax benefits to attract employers, plus workers willing to accept lower pay -- the very reason Caterpillar left Ontario for Indiana.
McGuinty may be a petulant, politically-motivated ingrate, but thankfully, not all Ontarians agree.
On Monday, Ontario's Progressive Conservative leader called the oilsands a "national treasure," saying McGuinty is seeking someone to blame after his government's spending created a $16-billion deficit.
"It's very clear -- after Alberta, Ontario gains the most from that natural resource in Alberta, the oilsands," said Tim Hudak, Ontario's official Opposition leader.
"I'm a proud Canadian and I think that's a great resource for our country as a whole, and Ontario has a lot to gain from it too."
Hudak told reporters that McGuinty's habit of trying to deflect blame for Ontario's woes is pathetic.
"I just think this is a sad response by the premier -- I'm just tired of him blaming other provinces for the situation he's dug us into," said Hudak.
"We've got a jobs crisis in our province and calling the oilsands an embarrassment as Dalton McGuinty's government has done is wrong.
"Let's support it, let's create jobs."
McGuinty though, isn't looking for new jobs. He's just searching for a scapegoat.

Some Of The Effects Of Multiple Sclerosis In Our Life.

I have Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. That means the M.S. gets more debilitating day by day as there are no drugs for my type that slows down the progression of M.S. I'm not a candidate for The Liberation Therapy - I had an Ultrasound that determined my neck arteries are open and they need to be pinched in order to receive this very simple operation. I was diagnosed in 1998. As of today, Feb. 27, 2012 I am in a wheelchair. My legs have no strength, I have very limited use of my right arm and hand (I'm right-handed) - I have difficulty operating and clicking a mouse. As a result, I need to use my left hand even though the strength has been reduced, I can use my left to sign documents but only my initials. I need to use a portable lift that can pick me up and set me down in either my wheelchair, or, in an easy chair in the T.V. room. I need help to have a shower. Caregivers come in 4 times per day to look after my personal needs. If I choose to sit in the wheelchair, since it doesn't have a tilt, I use a chest strap to hold me up as I can't do this myself. I can't afford to buy a wheelchair as it can cost around $18,000 per. This is paid through Alberta Aids to Daily Living. This chair is very basic as AADL only buys the least expensive one. Since it's been five years when I last applied for one, I can apply for another.
Our finances have been destroyed. When we sold our home to move into this one, a required bungalow, we were almost mortgage free. Since moving in 2003, 10 years later, we have maybe $90,000 in equity. That's not very much and we'll only have access to it if we sell. My wife can't work as she has her own health issues that prevent her from working. CPP brings in only 1088 and Social Assistance tops that up somewhat. I'm 53, my wife is 52.
In order to secure an income, I've been trading stocks, including currencies, with the help of a relative's husband who is VERY knowlegable in trading for at least 25 years. His computer knowledge was (is) virtually unmatched. Even though I had what seemed to be a very favorable influence here, the trading hasn't gone as well as planned. In 2006, I had bought a stock trading program that made it a perfectly good thing to buy right after I had to quit work at Telus due to the M.S. affecting negatively on my hands. I knew that I needed to secure an income and I thought this was the way to go. I was already in a manual wheelchair. I use a power one now.
I'm disappointed with the M.S. Clinic AND the M.S. Society. There really hasn't been any real, tangible, "cures" for M.S. although they would attest to the contrary. The M.S. continues to get worse along with our finances. Yeah, you could say the money given to this charity goes to M.S. research. Some of it does, but, most of it goes to keep researchers in high paying jobs. Am I jaded? Does our situation look like I shouldn't be? Ciau.

Enviro's Blown Out Of Proportion Rhetoric

If we fully develop Alberta's oilsands and burn the oil they produce, we will raise the temperature measurably all over the planet. That's the conclusion of an analysis by University of Victoria scientists Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart and published in the journal Nature.

Rather a big deal, one would think. But that's not what we read in the media this week.
The banner headline on the front page of the Globe and Mail: "Science rides to aid of oilsands."
Weaver and Swart found that burning all the economically accessible oil in the oilsands would raise the average global temperature by .02 C to .05 C, the Globe noted. "By comparison, burning all of the world's enormous coal resources would raise temperatures 15 degrees, while consuming the new global bounty of shale gas would produce a lift of just under three degrees. (Using up economically accessible reserves of natural gas and coal will raise temperatures .16 and .9 per degrees, respectively.)"

Seen that way, the oilsands look totally insignificant. And that was the way the story was portrayed throughout the media: Everybody relax. The oilsands are no big deal. Science says so.

Now, Friedrich Nietzsche got a little carried away when he said "there are no facts, only interpretations," but he had a point.
To understand facts, we must interpret them. And even when we interpret facts in good faith, interpretations can vary widely.

So how are we to interpret Weaver and Swart's study? The no-big-deal interpretation is one way to see it. But it's not the only way. There are others, including the one I opened this column with.
And yet it was the no-big-deal interpretation that dominated media reports. Why? Was it the insidious manipulation of the oil industry? A conspiracy in the corporate media?

No. It was James Hansen and Bill McKibben. They're responsible.
Hansen is the NASA climatologist who has led the charge against climate change from the earliest days. McKibben is a renowned environmentalist who heads 350.org, one of the leading climate change advocacy organizations.
Obviously, Hansen and McKibben do not believe the oilsands are no big deal. And we can surmise that both men were appalled to to see "science says oilsands are no big deal" in the media this week. But still, they were responsible.

That's because James Hansen famously called the oilsands a "carbon bomb." If they are fully exploited, he said, it's "game over." And Bill McKibben repeated these claims constantly when he led the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline.

Keystone was a remarkable victory for McKibben and Company. The forces arrayed against them were formidable. But the environmentalists succeeded in elevating the issue, stigmatizing the oilsands, and bringing political counter-pressure to bear on the White House.
During that struggle, some climate scientists and activists criticized the rhetoric of Hansen and McKibben. The oilsands are significant, they said. But a "carbon bomb"? And "game over"? That's wildly out of proportion. It's hype.

But McKibben and Company won. And you can't argue with success. Lots of environmentalists saw the fight against Keystone as a model for the future.
I hope they're reconsidering now.

Hansen and McKibben won a tactical victory by portraying the oilsands as a mammoth threat that could produce catastrophic climate change.
But they also set a benchmark. It was inevitable that when a proper analysis was done the results would be compared to that benchmark.
And it was inevitable that there would be headlines like "Science rides to aid of oilsands."

And that isn't the only damage Hansen and McKibben's hyperbole will do to their cause. Having made wildly inflated claims, and then been so publicly contradicted by solid science, Hansen and McKibben will find their credibility has taken a big hit.
And they can be sure that the next time they make any claim about the oilsands, or anything else, this will be flung at them from every direction.
They won a tactical victory. But it cost them a strategic defeat.
This is an old story in the environmental movement.

In 1968, Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which forecast famine and collapse if radical change wasn't undertaken immediately. Ehrlich's powerful language helped make The Population Bomb a smash.
Millions of copies were sold. Ehrlich's advocacy group - "Zero Population Growth" - mushroomed. Ehrlich became a prominent leader in the burgeoning environmental movement.

But as the years passed, events turned out differently than Ehrlich expected. His predictions failed. The strong, clear, confident, and frightening language he used - the language which had done so much to grab attention and advance the cause - started to look ridiculous. And Ehrlich became a useful weapon in the arsenal of anti-environmentalists.

Whenever an environmentalist says climate change is dangerous. Whenever a scientist worries about feeding a global population of nine billion. Whenever anyone anywhere issues a warning the anti-environmentalists don't want people to take seriously. They mock Paul Ehrlich.
The logic is false, of course. The fact that Paul Ehrlich was wrong doesn't mean others who raise an alarm are wrong. But it's a powerful rhetorical bludgeon. And Paul Ehrlich gave it to them.

Hyperbole works in the short term. There's no doubt about that. It gets attention and action. But the long term is something else entirely.
And if the struggle against climate change is about anything, it's about the long term.

More Native Nonsense

Sober Perpective On Oil Sands Emissions

In a commentary published Sunday in the prestigious journal Nature, Weaver and colleague Neil Stewart analyze how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis breaks out unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional oil sources including the oil sands.

They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oil sands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That’s about half the total amount of warming over the last century.
When only commercially viable oil sands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C. In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe’s vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees. Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep warming to two degrees.
“The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming,” Dr. Weaver said. “The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas.”
He said his analysis suggests it is an increased dependence on coal – not the oil sands – that governments have to worry about. As well, there’s so much gas in the world that it will also cause problems despite the fact it emits less carbon than oil.
“One might argue that the best strategy one might take is to use our oil reserves wisely, but at the same time use them in a way that weans us of our dependence on coal and natural gas,” Dr. Weaver said. “As we become more and more dependent on these massive reserves, we’re less and less likely to wean ourselves away from them.”

Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.
Dr. Weaver’s analysis only accounts for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn’t count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource because that would double-count those emissions.
He said his paper is an attempt to bring some perspective to the often-fraught debate over oil sands development, which continues to cause major concerns about the impact on land, air and water. And emissions from producing oil sands crude are making it very tough for Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
“We’ve heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tar sands it’s going to lead to this, that and the other. We thought, ‘Well, let’s take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?’ and the numbers are what they are.”
He said the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels.
“This idea that we’re going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We’ll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.
“I have always said that the tar sands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels.”

I'm Just Say'in, These Are Afterall, The Stats

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat: Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works: As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8% At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6% >From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam ,  with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in: Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15% After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8% At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7% >From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70% After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Palestine -- Muslim 99% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96% 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses

THIS POST AND THE ONE ABOVE ARE FROM THE SAME ARTICLE

re the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?

Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus , Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...?  Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already??

That should make the US ' homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago?

Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously – no… Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no… Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically – no… Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no… Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically - no…Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no… Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no… Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no… Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no… Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS
in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Can a muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.
SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.