Saturday, May 26, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
It is deeply ironic that the commission should only be brought into disrepute by the appointment of a witless representative from a banana-peel republic, not for the muddleheaded and/or dangerous nonsense for which it stands.
A few more quotes [emphasis mine]:
In short, reasons we should all recoil in horror from ‘sustainable development’:
The definition of 'sustainable development' -- meeting the needs of the present without jeopardizing the needs of the future-- was hatched by the UN's 1987 Brundtland Commission.
The definition manages to be at once bland, meaningless, utopian and dangerous. How can we know, much less add up, the "needs" of everybody on earth? How can we possibly gauge what the needs of "the future" will be?
Canada 's maestro of multinational multi-tasking, Maurice Strong, was a key member of Brundtland. ....It is essentially yet another of the sleeper cells set up to pursue Mr. Strong's impossible dream.
....as Mr. Strong has said without attracting sufficient laughter, what the world needs is a UN-based system to manage literally everything.
If anthropogenic global warming represents the mother of all management problems, sustainable development represents the matriarch of all political pretensions.
Sustainable development, like its semantic sister, corporate social responsibility, is merely the failed socialist wolf in the emperor's new sheepskin.
- It’s socialist utopianism involving global central planning;
- Like most socialist ideas it’s not workable, even in theory;
- Maurice Strong was a key figure in hatching the idea;
- The U.N. is enthusiastic about it;
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
In her National Post column last week the Conservatives come up short:
In a second column the Liberals faired even worse:
....two dozen people who are qualified to run a charity, launch a special-interest group or be Minister of Justice because they are lawyers.
...only one person qualified to be Minister of Finance [David Emerson].
...."talent pool" is so bereft it is downright worrisome.
...no savvy technocrats ...no street smarts. This is a crew capable of running Greenpeace, a farm, giving university lectures or running a law firm.
This week’s column covers the NDP and the Bloc. No surprises here:
...both have different names but are, at the root, merely European labour parties.
The recommended solution:
...[neither have any MPs] who would have the slightest clue about the nuances of tax, capital markets, income trust or most economic policies.
Canada's governance gap could be closed if candidates:That’s what I like about the American system - a separate, appointed, highly qualified executive branch to run the government.
1) were required to pass a rigorous economic IQ test and
2) were paid the average of their past five years' salary with a cap of $500,000. This would encourage trained applicants to run.
However, it’s unlikely that anything will change (for the better) anytime soon - so I guess we just have to count our blessings and be thankful we’re as well off as we are.
Monday, May 14, 2007
I have to agree with sda commenter ‘ET’ and others who argue that the central issue is not so much the use of Findley’s novel in class but the degree to which the ‘education’ system has become a vehicle for leftist indoctrination.
I’m reminded of this interview with Brazilian political thinker Olavo de Carvalho concerning the influence of deceased (1891-1937, but not dead enough) socialist guru Antonio Gramsci:
Conspiracy or not, it would appear that Gramsci’s philosophy is being fairly successfully applied.
[former Italian communist leader Antonio] Gramsci, side by side with the frankfurtians and the Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukacs, is one of the top masterminds of the so-called "cultural marxism", which is not a school of thought but a bunch of heterogeneous proposals having in common the hate [of] Western civilization, and the belief that, the cultural war against it, should precede and guide the political fight for socialism..........They try to accomplish the practical goals of marxism by means that disavow its theory.
[Gramsci advocated that] Disguised socialist influence should spread to every field of human social existence, including private life and the most intimate feelings. Child care, medicine, psychoterapy, religion and marriage counseling were preferential channels for the transmission of that influence. Christian churches, for instance, should not be criticized, but infiltrated in order to deprive them of their spiritual content and use them as megaphones for communist watchwords. At the same time, disguised communists should occupy all the posts in educational, cultural and media organizations, gradually and carefully expelling their opponents to the last man. Communist ideology should recast all the language of public conversations, in order to provide that every circulating opinion contributes unconsciously to communist-fabricated general results.
Olavo de Carvalho's web-site.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Den Beste’s words about "development projects" and "why can’t we provide clean drinking water for everyone on earth", reminded me of the never-ending aid projects and campaigns to "help" long suffering Africa.
Many aid projects, as Den Beste hints, are "fundamentally easy" - the lowest of low-tech: digging wells for water, building fences for livestock, mosquito netting to combat malaria. These are the kinds of efforts that you’d think Africans would be fully capable of doing on their own.
Isn’t one of the big problems (albeit caused largely by dysfunctional and/or corrupt governance) in Africa the general economy, jobs, etc? Yet Western aid organizations are forever focused on funding and doing the work "for" Africa. Thirty years and a trillion or so dollars later it’s more of the same or worse. What’s that definition of insanity?
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
"Do they not make a muzzle in that man's size?"
"You want a fast and easy way to endanger our troops and undermine all the great hearts-and-minds victories they've been winning in Kandahar province? Dictating to the Afghan government how they should conduct their internal affairs on their own soil will do it."
"Stephane Dion needs to pull back on this idiot's leash, and hard."
"Time for Travers and Coderre to hammer out the finer points of their plan over a nice, hot cup of SHUT THE HELL UP."
Saturday, May 5, 2007
"The IPCC relies on ice-core data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains.
While Dr. Jaworowski’s work is extremely important, the results aren’t that surprising. What is more surprising, shocking really, is that there was an organized effort to suppress his research on the grounds that it is "immoral" to do research that might contradict a preferred hypothesis:
"These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless -- the IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
"....in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research."
If there’s any "immoral" or unethical behaviour here it was on the part of those who, for political and financial reasons, attempted to suppress legitimate scientific inquiry.
"Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article ...Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire .... Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."
How much more proof do we need that UN IPCC sponsored science, like many UN endeavours, is hopelessly politicized and corrupted?
Update: For a very comprehensive discussion on this issue see the article by Dr. Jaworowski "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time" published in the journal EIR, March 16, 2007. This article was apparently the basis for Lawrence Solomon's column. Credit for finding it goes to Bill at A Dog Named Kyoto where there's an excellent summary and commentary. As Bill says, read the whole thing - it's worth the effort. It's an absolutely scathing indictment of the IPCC and all its hangers-on.